There is no "Rule Zero"! [Archive] - Page 5 - Giant in the Playground Forums

Karoht

2011-04-01, 03:40 PM

Behind the Scenes example.

Players get into a fight with a 'boss' like encounter, final encounter in a dungeon. After a few rounds of hiccups, they finally have the fight into a decent rhythem. Now, it's a boss encounter so it's already something with a lot of hit points and is supposed to be tough. But already, the boss is getting low on health and will probably die soon.
If I see that the players are just starting to get warmed up, they're really outmanouvering the encounter well and clearly have it in hand, what I sometimes do is just give the boss 100 more HP. Or it uses an item to restore itself. Or rages and gets some temporary hit points. Just something to prolong the fight, because everyone is finally having fun with it, but no so long as to endanger people needlessly or increase the difficulty of the encounter, merely it's duration.
Not in all cases, do the players have to be aware of exactly how many hitpoints the creature has. Not in all cases, can they. They also don't know what is in it's inventory.

It's Rule Zero. I won't deny it, I ass pulled and gave the monster something it didn't have at the start of the encounter. On the other hand the players don't have any way of knowing if the boss did or did not have this at the start of the encounter, so it's behind closed doors. It might not have any effect other than to give the party another round of beating the tar out of something. Or it could have the negative effect of giving the creature another round of attacks which equals a lucky crit or two and a PC drops. But, said use of Rule Zero in this case is intended to improve the fun factor for a moment or two more.

Poor use or not-so-poor use?
I'd also postulate (as I'm pretty sure others have in this thread) that Rule Zero is based in both intention and implimentation. As I mentioned, a Rule Zero can be implimented well or poorly. It can be well intended or it can be poorly intended.

Another example of behind the scenes stuff is where you might alter the alignment of an NPC. DnD tries to say these changes are supposed to be big, but most player parties will typically not notice. Maybe it's changed to make the character more meaningful (IE-Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral to Lawful Good on a royal official or leader or town guard), or perhaps more comical, or to make the character less meaningful and more background. But the players don't have to know about it, and it's not like they have a character sheet for every NPC in front of them.

Yukitsu

2011-04-01, 03:48 PM

The Big Dice

2011-04-01, 04:05 PM

Big Dice, I've seen rule zero used quite a lot for plot related reasons. We probably play in different games, though, so experience will vary. Regardless, we certainly agree that it is *possible* for rule zero to be used for either plot or non plot reasons.
I don't see any reason it couldn't be used for plot reasons. But there are other, more disagreeable, things that can be done there. LIke i've seen players told they can't have their ultra-urban Cyberpunk character commit suicide after the party got abducted by aliens and left of a garden planet with no cities to speak of.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-01, 04:33 PM

BigDice, that does seem like a particularly poor decision. The idea that a player cannot even choose to die is...a remarkable example of railroading.

While I feel that rule zero is problematic, I'm certainly not claiming that it is the only, or even most problematic thing. There are all manner of ways to really screw up a gaming session, and some of the worst of them have nothing to do with the game system at all.

Behind the Scenes example.

Players get into a fight with a 'boss' like encounter, final encounter in a dungeon. After a few rounds of hiccups, they finally have the fight into a decent rhythem. Now, it's a boss encounter so it's already something with a lot of hit points and is supposed to be tough. But already, the boss is getting low on health and will probably die soon.

And this is fine. A few rounds of hiccups, they get it down, and then they win? That's a solid fight.

D&D fights are not generally extremely long. I'd estimate that the vast majority of fights are over in five rounds or less.

Karoht

2011-04-01, 04:36 PM

Why would I find the battle more fun if it's longer by 1 round? Why as a DM, was I not able to know how much damage they'd approximately be doing, and simply plan the encounter ahead of time based on that? Why should I penalize lucky rolls, if they're doing above average damage?Maybe it's just me, but as a player, I hate it when there's all this buildup leading to a fight, and then the fight just ends in a round or two, just when things start to get good. So I try to consider this when I build encounters in the first place (and will typically pad the hitpoints prior to the encounter starting anyway, or add an extra mook or two when combat starts), to make the encounter at least last long enough for everyone to have a good time.

Some people I play with formulate plans which take more than one round to pull off, and I always love to give the players the chance to see them through to their fullest before the encounter ends. It's more a consideration to the players to encourage fun. But like I also pointed out, it's also more opportunity for things to go arwy, so maybe it isn't a good idea. It also makes combat feel less rushed, and I have met players who think every combat has to end in 1 round or they've not done something right. I've also seen parties where average combat length is 2-3 rounds, and that was considered a challenging fight.

stainboy

2011-04-01, 04:38 PM

No, Rule 0 would be the Gm going "Sure, you can shoot. But the wind will mean you're taking an extra -2 at that range, and he's got a 20% Miss Chance because he's giving a speech to a big crowd and you're not shooting from above."

Crowds are cover, not concealment. :smalltongue:

Where's the Rule 0 here? This is just enforcing RAW (assuming you didn't mean the concealment vs cover thing to be a deliberate rules change). I could see it if the DM selectively enforced RAW and in another similar case the PC didn't take the range and cover penalties.

The Big Dice

2011-04-01, 04:44 PM

Crowds are cover, not concealment. :smalltongue:

Where's the Rule 0 here? This is just enforcing RAW (assuming you didn't mean the concealment vs cover thing to be a deliberate rules change). I could see it if the DM selectively enforced RAW and in another similar case the PC didn't take the range and cover penalties.

The point is, a call was made without consulting the book. Hence the cover rather than concealment (though a case could be made either way) and the penalty for it being windy when IIRC there's almost no mention of weather in the DMG.

stainboy

2011-04-02, 12:17 AM

Ah, fair enough. I thought the -2 penalty for wind was RAW and you were giving an example of the DM piling on every penalty he could find in the DMG. My mistake.

The Big Dice

2011-04-02, 04:34 AM

Ah, fair enough. I thought the -2 penalty for wind was RAW and you were giving an example of the DM piling on every penalty he could find in the DMG. My mistake.
I have no idea of it is or not. I don't look stuff like that up during sessions. I might in advance is it's going to be important, like a fight on a windy cathedral roof or something. Otherwise I'll invent something.

With Rule 0 of course :smallbiggrin:

Swordguy

2011-04-02, 08:03 AM

BigDice, that does seem like a particularly poor decision. The idea that a player cannot even choose to die is...a remarkable example of railroading.

If players are allowed to have their PCs commit suicide at will, then we see repeated instances of players having PCs will statlines they don't like kill themselves time after time until they end up with a statline they like. I have personally watched a D&D 2e player (so no pointbuy option) kill his character over seventy times until he ended up with a statline with 4 18's.

I consider that far worse for the atmosphere of the game than a touch of railroading.

The Glyphstone

2011-04-02, 08:15 AM

Great Modthulhu: Locked for review.

Edit: And re-opened, for now. The thread is treading a very thin and fragile line as-is, so let this serve as formal warning that direct attacks on other posters or groups' playstyles is not acceptable. So far, discussion regarding the merits of Rule 0, Houserules, or Fiat (along with the definitions of such) has maintained civility, but should this change, the thread will be locked and not re-opened.

Lurkmoar

2011-04-02, 08:38 AM

If players are allowed to have their PCs commit suicide at will, then we see repeated instances of players having PCs will statlines they don't like kill themselves time after time until they end up with a statline they like. I have personally watched a D&D 2e player (so no pointbuy option) kill his character over seventy times until he ended up with a statline with 4 18's.

I consider that far worse for the atmosphere of the game than a touch of railroading.

That... that... was allowed to happen? o___O

But seriously, Rule Zero exists. How can you deny it? You can argue that it's a bad thing, but I merely view it as a tool. Tools are not good or bad, the blame or credit lays with who uses it.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-02, 08:45 AM

If players are allowed to have their PCs commit suicide at will, then we see repeated instances of players having PCs will statlines they don't like kill themselves time after time until they end up with a statline they like. I have personally watched a D&D 2e player (so no pointbuy option) kill his character over seventy times until he ended up with a statline with 4 18's.

I consider that far worse for the atmosphere of the game than a touch of railroading.

That player has an odd idea of fun.

Anyhow, I use stat buy, so no such problems arise. I view situations where repeated suicide is beneficial to indicate something is broken.

Yora

2011-04-02, 08:54 AM

Question: Has anyone quoted the actual Rule 0 in this thread? Because I think it's not what people here think it is. (Can't find that quote myself, though.)

FelixG

2011-04-02, 09:13 AM

Question: Has anyone quoted the actual Rule 0 in this thread? Because I think it's not what people here think it is. (Can't find that quote myself, though.)

1:The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:
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)
2: This is an unspoken rule in Table top RPGs. It is that the Game Master, or whoever is running the campaign, can simply say no to anything the other players suggest without explanation.
3: he 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.

Pretty much the unwritten rule that could either allow the DM to fix something that doesnt work (granted thats up to him and no consensus is needed), or conversely be a total -exponent deleted- because he feels like it.

dsmiles

2011-04-02, 09:16 AM

Question: Has anyone quoted the actual Rule 0 in this thread? Because I think it's not what people here think it is. (Can't find that quote myself, though.)
Unfortunately, the components of rule zero are scattered in the 3.5 DMG, 1e, and I think, 2e stated it quite clearly.

Here's a part of it:

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 (more on that later)
To carry out that responsibility, you need to know the rules. You're not required to memorize the rulebooks, but you should have a clear idea of what's in them, so that when a situation comes up that requires a ruling, you know where to reference the proper rule in the book.
Often a situation will arise that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved.
Another part:

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

That was a lot of typing, so I've probably been ninja'd by now.

EDIT: Ninja'd, but not by a quote from the DMG.

Yora

2011-04-02, 09:16 AM

I was thinking of a paragraph right in the front of one of the older DMGs. Though I'm not exactly sure if that was labled as rule 0. But I think it did.

I think what it actually said was "You don't have to play by RAW. If something is not covered by a written rule or something else works better for your game, feel free to come up with different rules."

Ninjad by someone getting ninjad. :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-02, 09:18 AM

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

Man, this is actually a good example of why the writers need to word things better.

This could imply one of two things: that a DM with very little experience will find rule changing challenging, or that rule changing is a job for DMs with only a little experience (THIS IS A CHALLENGE FOR SUPERMAN)

Lurkmoar

2011-04-02, 09:23 AM

Good editors go a long way....

FelixG

2011-04-02, 09:24 AM

Good editors go along way....

Its WoTC, what do you expect? Doesnt 4e have more errata/patch notes than WoW at this point? :smallbiggrin:

Lurkmoar

2011-04-02, 09:27 AM

Its WoTC, what do you expect? Doesnt 4e have more errata/patch notes than WoW at this point? :smallbiggrin:

I don't know, I expect standards maybe?

But in all seriousness... is Rule 0 really a problem? Trying to explain why a Lawful Good character wouldn't go shaking down a poor gnome for protection money was a bigger problem in my old group then Rule 0!

Yora

2011-04-02, 09:28 AM

I think when people complain about Rule 0, they think it means "I throw random crap at you for the lulz. You can't do anything against it because I'm the DM, haha, suckers!"

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-02, 09:29 AM

Trying to explain why a Lawful Good character wouldn't go shaking down a poor gnome for protection money was a bigger problem in my old group then Rule 0!

Okay, there's an entertaining story here and it needs to be told.

FelixG

2011-04-02, 09:34 AM

I don't know, I expect standards maybe?

But in all seriousness... is Rule 0 really a problem? Trying to explain why a Lawful Good character wouldn't go shaking down a poor gnome for protection money was a bigger problem in my old group then Rule 0!

I pointed out earlier in this thread (I think) that "rule 0" is an immediate ground for being given the boot out of the DM chair and having someone take over the story for you with my RL group.

Now this is an extreme case of horrible GMing, the GM in question would A: never show his rolls (another reason every roll in our RL group has to be done in the open now) B: He would randomly say we were crit on without ever TOUCHING a dice or have traps suddenly spring on someone who did something he didnt like C: let his girlfriend do crazy stuff, give her double xp, steal other PCs property without even a slight of hand ect.

Those are just three of the things that come to mind and he would always defend using "Rule 0, im the GM how I say goes." and techicly, by "Rule 0" he is right.

What we have adopted is a collaboration system, if something comes up we give it a quick discussion and we all agree on the best course of action for it. Giving all the power to the GM is just a bad idea in my experiences.

Pigkappa

2011-04-02, 09:54 AM

Now this is an extreme case of horrible GMing, the GM in question would A: never show his rolls (another reason every roll in our RL group has to be done in the open now) B: He would randomly say we were crit on without ever TOUCHING a dice or have traps suddenly spring on someone who did something he didnt like C: let his girlfriend do crazy stuff, give her double xp, steal other PCs property without even a slight of hand ect.

A is good. It avoids annoying situations in which the players can calculate the mob's attack bonus or saving throws or whatever, and allows the DM to fudge without notice if it is really necessary.

FelixG

2011-04-02, 09:57 AM

A is good. It avoids annoying situations in which the players can calculate the mob's attack bonus or saving throws or whatever, and allows the DM to fudge without notice if it is really necessary.

I am of the opinion that if the job is done right you dont need to cheat the rolls, It has worked out fine for my group so far, rolling out in the open encourages trust.

There are some rolls that it calls to make without the players knoweldge, thats ok, but normal things should be open.

Edit: and who cares if the players number crunch, a person when fighting something and as experienced as the PCs are supposed to be SHOULD be able to figure things out along the way.

Yora

2011-04-02, 10:09 AM

Always depends a lot on the people involved. If my players are suprised by how I handle something, I let them voice their concern and usually it's a mistake or oversight by me that then can be corrected immediately.
If I diliberately handle something differently than the rulebooks, I either tell them why I did so or that their characters are suprised as well and can find out the reason in game.
But then I expect them to go with it for now. If they don't like the way I handle something, they can bring it up at the end of the session or after the encounter and discuss alternative ways to handle it in the future. And I never had my players complaining about hat.
But then I consider myself to be a nice guy and nonconfrontational, and I consistently use the same rules in all situations they apply. :smallsmile:
Also, I usually play in groups in which no player ever read any parts of the PHB but the Feats and Spell sections. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone

2011-04-02, 11:54 AM

Also, I usually play in groups in which no player ever read any parts of the PHB but the Feats and Spell sections. :smallbiggrin:

How do they pick their classes?:smallconfused:

Yora

2011-04-02, 12:01 PM

I ask them what they have in mind for their characters and then tell them the differences between the classes that might fit. Then me and the occasional second player who knows the rulebooks guide them through filling out their character sheets. Since making new characters happens rarely, they usually don't bother with learning about all the classes themselves.

Lurkmoar

2011-04-03, 07:32 AM

Okay, there's an entertaining story here and it needs to be told.

My old group a few years ago was primary made up of a bunch of Heroic Sociopaths, easy on the heroics and heavy on the sociopath. I didn't know it at the time until the following incident happened.

After finding out a few of my neighbors were into D&D, they found out I had some moderate GMing experience. I was roped into coming up with a scenario. I think I did alright on short notice; typical fantasy world, but I made humans the oldest race with the other humanoid and demihuman races their successors. Humans were pretty much dying out, living on fading magic and the party was composed of a group (one of many actually, thought it would be novel for other parties with similar goals that could cross paths every now and then) sent out to find a replacement for it.

After some cliche back stories were made by both me and the players (daughter of the queen, son of the disgraced nobleman, yada yada yada), the brave party ventured forth into the world after borrowing some gear and collapsible ten foot poles. They made contact with a nearby settlement of gnomes that was being harassed by a marauding band of orc wolf riders. What, don't stare at me like that, it was 90s! The party, being 'good' citizens naturally went to the aid of the gnomes by launching a sneak attack at night, killing the entire orc tribe.

While I crumbled up my notes about how the Orc Chief (with a minor clue to a new magic source) would have taken a tribute/been intimated off/negotiated/take another option what have, the party went back to the gnome settlement. I was slightly perturbed that they didn't even bother to confirm that the orcs were evil and seemed to believe that the gnomes instantly. They were right in this case, but I let it slide. The gnomes were naturally overjoyed that the orcs would no longer threaten their humble vegetable gardens.

Gnome mayor: "Oh Thank'ee! You've saved the harvest! We don't have much, but please allow us to honor you with a feast worthy of ol' Callihand himself!"
Party Leader: "A feast won't be necessary. We deal in steel. We also accept coin and knowledge."
GM: "I'm afraid we don't have much of any of those.... the wealth we have is our families and what we grow."
PL: "But you buy your supplies from Gadarhill. You must have some coin. Otherwise we can't promise that the orcs will stay gone."
GM: "We only make enough money to pay for our taxes! The rest is spent on the community and to Callihand's good graces!"

At this point, Party Leader backhands the gnome. I sat speechless for a good ten seconds before I go, "What the hell was that for?"

Player: "Establishing that we don't work for free. We're heroes on an important quest, we don't have time to play nice."
Me: "The mayor didn't do anything to deserve that! If you're heroes you're supposed to behave in a suitable manner!"
Player: "The ends justify the means."
Me: "We're not at the end though. Have you played a Lawful Good character before?"

A little more pointless blather until I coincide that the gnomes cave in and fork over what little money they had. I was planning on bringing the gnomes back as indentured servants to the Big Bad, but the party died before that could happen. Though they claimed I pulled a Rocks Fall, Everyone dies, I wasn't the one that made them drink liquid chlorine. I tried to warn them, SEVERAL TIMES. They were traveling in the Forest of Flowing Death, did they expect fluffy bunnies or something?

I pointed out earlier in this thread (I think) that "rule 0" is an immediate ground for being given the boot out of the DM chair and having someone take over the story for you with my RL group.

I see, no trust. That's not good.

Now this is an extreme case of horrible GMing, the GM in question would A: never show his rolls (another reason every roll in our RL group has to be done in the open now) B: He would randomly say we were crit on without ever TOUCHING a dice or have traps suddenly spring on someone who did something he didnt like C: let his girlfriend do crazy stuff, give her double xp, steal other PCs property without even a slight of hand ect.

Those are just three of the things that come to mind and he would always defend using "Rule 0, im the GM how I say goes." and techicly, by "Rule 0" he is right.

What we have adopted is a collaboration system, if something comes up we give it a quick discussion and we all agree on the best course of action for it. Giving all the power to the GM is just a bad idea in my experiences.

Again, seems like you've had bad experiences. I've only been shafted by Rule 0 once myself, but after an hour I calmed down and admitted it was pretty funny that my thief was now a peeing statue at a snotty nobleman's home. I don't mind collaboration, but sometimes too many cooks in a kitchen makes for a lousy meal. But hey, if it works for you, that's great.

stainboy

2011-04-04, 12:11 AM

Edit: and who cares if the players number crunch, a person when fighting something and as experienced as the PCs are supposed to be SHOULD be able to figure things out along the way.

I agree with this. D&D has a few abilities that only "work" if the player knows the DC before the roll. Basically every martial type has Power Attack and Power Attack only works if you can make an informed choice.

(Or if you have Shock Trooper or you can make touch attacks for weapon damage, but anyway.)

Karoht

2011-04-04, 09:50 AM

Its WoTC, what do you expect? Doesnt 4e have more errata/patch notes than WoW at this point? :smallbiggrin:

This is an issue that I pointed out the other day to another DM regarding Rule Zero, in regards to banning certain combinations of classes or feats or what have you, which end in game-breaking imbalanced.

IE-Pun Pun
I'd read the relevant books he's from. I had absolutely NO idea Pun Pun could exist until I visited this website. I highly doubt there is even a note on that particular combination in the errata, though I've never read the errata.

The expectation is that the makers of any game playtest their stuff prior to printing. I know things slip through, and Pun Pun is a very obscure collection of things from several books in a specific setting. But I know of no way that a junior or even experienced DM would find out about that without research on a site like this.

DM's shouldn't have to scout their player's builds to detect incoming cheese and imbalance. Sure, they should know their players capabilities, but I shouldn't hesitate when a player asks if they can take some obscure feat that they meet all the criteria for, thinking that maybe they're on their way to Blackguard or something. I like that players can keep DM's a little paranoid, but not to the extent that every feat or prestige class or multiclass option becomes suspect.

/rant

TL;DR-WoTC needs better editors and testers. It would prevent/mitigate many uses and abuses of Rule Zero.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 10:14 AM

IE-Pun Pun
I'd read the relevant books he's from. I had absolutely NO idea Pun Pun could exist until I visited this website. I highly doubt there is even a note on that particular combination in the errata, though I've never read the errata.

Yeah, pun-pun is a fairly non-obvious combo. It's a fairly popular thing now...but it's not something I'm shocked got missed.

The expectation is that the makers of any game playtest their stuff prior to printing. I know things slip through, and Pun Pun is a very obscure collection of things from several books in a specific setting. But I know of no way that a junior or even experienced DM would find out about that without research on a site like this.

It still requires the DM hand the player a sarruk, and grant the player the ability to grant abilities. And that, in itself, should ring warning bells.

The current iteration, with Pazuzu, is also highly dependant on GM interpretation.

Wish loops are also something that should strike warning bells.

I don't see it actually coming up in a game unless a GM is ridiculously permissive. They don't actually need to know the full combo to realize that something is wrong with the components.

DM's shouldn't have to scout their player's builds to detect incoming cheese and imbalance. Sure, they should know their players capabilities, but I shouldn't hesitate when a player asks if they can take some obscure feat that they meet all the criteria for, thinking that maybe they're on their way to Blackguard or something. I like that players can keep DM's a little paranoid, but not to the extent that every feat or prestige class or multiclass option becomes suspect.

/rant

TL;DR-WoTC needs better editors and testers. It would prevent/mitigate many uses and abuses of Rule Zero.

Fair call. There are a few things that are just poorly written. The Sarruk itself, for instance.

Yora

2011-04-04, 10:20 AM

And then there's Complete Psionic.

Why is there a stat block for mind flayers right in the middle of the prestige classes chapter? No one knows. :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 10:24 AM

Yeah, there's a few things that are just glaringly...odd.

Good playtesting and editing are important

Swordguy

2011-04-04, 10:45 AM

Editing? Sure.

Playtesting? No gaming company, ever, has the resources to playtest the stuff to the degree we're talking about. And that's to say nothing of the volume of material that WoTC puts out. It's flat-out economically impossible; your playtesting cycle is either too long while your playtesters do their thing (a plytest cycle for a splat is about 2 months - it's taken the internet years to come up with some of this stuff) or you have to pay so many playtesters that you won't make money. And with each thing you release, the playtesting cycle has to get longer and more expensive because you have to playtest its interaction with everything else you've released before!

You are straight-out asking for something impossible. It's like people who say that there should be no continuity errors in movies. There are well-paid people who's specific job it is to keep those errors out of the finished product...but that stuff is going to happen anyway.

Playtests are ALWAYS going to miss things. There are ALWAYS going to be poorly-written rules that, it taken 100% literally, allow players to "win the game" or similar. This is why RAI is so much more important than RAW; the designers never intended Pun-pun to be possible. And it's one of the myriad of reasons why Rule 0 is absolutely critical to any RPG: it's the last line of defense a game often has against the sort of things that the playtesting cycle simply didn't have the time or resources to check.

(Full Disclosure: playtester for Catalyst Game Labs [BattleTech, Leviathans, and a unreleased thing I'm NDA'd on], who have a pretty long development cycle. Even so, we know that there's no way to 100% playtest every possible rules interaction - even with hundreds of us and an extra couple months to work on a given project over the "industry standard". You do the best you can in the time allotted, and then it goes live.)

The Big Dice

2011-04-04, 10:47 AM

Good playtesting and editing are important
They also take time, which can put back release schedules. Which in turn can affect the bottom line if you're pushing for say, a big GenCon release. And you also need to be brave enough to listen to what your playtesters are saying. These are all faults that AEG have shown over the past five or six years. Especially the not listening to their playtesters thing.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 10:51 AM

A lot of roleplaying playtesting can be done with volunteers.

I don't demand that no errors ever exist...but I do expect things such as indexes to exist for any books that are essentially giant collections of things. Like frigging Spell Compendium. It should have a list of the spells in it, by class list.

I would also like example characters to be actually legal. If they are not, they are failing utterly at the one thing they exist to do.

Infinite wish loops exist in core. Wishes as a way to make magic items cheaper than actually just making magic items is pure core. It doesn't take ridiculous playtesting to realize that this is problematic.

Things like that, I feel are fairly easy to catch. I notice many of these sorts of things the first time I read through a book.

dsmiles

2011-04-04, 10:59 AM

I would also like example characters to be actually legal. If they are not, they are failing utterly at the one thing they exist to do.Please, God, make the example characters meet the pre-reqs for the class they're examples of. If only one thing got fixed, I'd want it to be this.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 11:09 AM

Please, God, make the example characters meet the pre-reqs for the class they're examples of. If only one thing got fixed, I'd want it to be this.

Yeah. That just falls into the "really, are you even trying?" category. I don't expect them to read every book ever for possible synergy. I do expect them to read the class they are writing the rules for.

Karoht

2011-04-04, 11:24 AM

They also take time, which can put back release schedules. Which in turn can affect the bottom line if you're pushing for say, a big GenCon release. And you also need to be brave enough to listen to what your playtesters are saying. These are all faults that AEG have shown over the past five or six years. Especially the not listening to their playtesters thing.Which is why WoTC doesn't really bother with serious playtesting, and rather leaves DM's and Players to trip over these issues, with things like Rule Zero as a bandaid. Great job, giant corporation with lots of money and lots of fans. Way to go.

Yes, sacrifice the integrity of your product because you have a GenCon release coming up. And totally don't listen to playtesters or nothin. Naw, thats too easy.

/sarcasm off

This is part of why I don't mind Rule Zero, especially when you trip on a rules snafu.

Jayabalard

2011-04-04, 11:53 AM

Why would I find the battle more fun if it's longer by 1 round?a couple of quick examples:

Perhaps it's less anti-climactic; someone 1 shotting the villain doesn't allow for a proper tension buildup. There's an analogy that's really pertinent to this, but I have a feeling that it's a bit too risque for these fora :smallbiggrin:
Perhaps the character with the character defining enmity with the BBEG actually gets to act and contribute to the demise of his foe rather than the fight being over before they have a chance to act.

Note: this isn't saying that battle is always more fun if it's more than 1 round, or even that this is often the case, just pointing out that it can sometimes be the case..

Why as a DM, was I not able to know how much damage they'd approximately be doing, and simply plan the encounter ahead of time based on that? Spike damage; lucky roll or unlucky roll; previously unused ability or ability synergy (either something they've always held in reserve or a new unused ability); etc.

That... that... was allowed to happen? o___OHe's responding to someone saying that preventing a someone from having their character commit suicide is an example of horrible railroading.

Question: Has anyone quoted the actual Rule 0 in this thread? Because I think it's not what people here think it is. (Can't find that quote myself, though.)While people still tend to think in terms of D&D, keep in mind that this is really a game-agnostic topic. You're probably better off if you don't get too caught up in the specific text of any particular game system.

A lot of roleplaying playtesting can be done with volunteers. No, volunteers almost universally lack the training and knowledge necessary to both properly test the game and report on issues properly (especially the latter). You see the same problem with video games, and why the open beta's for video games tend to be (99+%) a marketing ploy.

Karoht

2011-04-04, 12:14 PM

a couple of quick examples:

Perhaps it's less anti-climactic; someone 1 shotting the villain doesn't allow for a proper tension buildup. There's an analogy that's really pertinent to this, but I have a feeling that it's a bit too risque for these fora :smallbiggrin:
Perhaps the character with the character defining enmity with the BBEG actually gets to act and contribute to the demise of his foe rather than the fight being over before they have a chance to act.

Note: this isn't saying that battle is always more fun if it's more than 1 round, or even that this is often the case, just pointing out that it can sometimes be the case..
Spike damage; lucky roll or unlucky roll; previously unused ability or ability synergy (either something they've always held in reserve or a new unused ability); etc.And I agree with the previous person's point that lucky rolls and spikes shouldn't be penalized, which is valid. But again, when there's 4 players at a table, they ALL want to have a go at the BBEG. Having him survive a bit more means they all get a shot, and not just kicking him when he's down.

No, volunteers almost universally lack the training and knowledge necessary to properly test the game or report on issues properly. you see the same problem with video games, and why the open beta's for video games tend to be (99+%) a marketing ploy.Actually, open beta's work on the 1000 monkeys concept. Moreso as, 1000 players will find bugs and report them better than your in house team of 10 ever could. People forget that beta testing is there to test bugs and get a volume of numbers, not quality.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 12:35 PM

Actually, open beta's work on the 1000 monkeys concept. Moreso as, 1000 players will find bugs and report them better than your in house team of 10 ever could. People forget that beta testing is there to test bugs and get a volume of numbers, not quality.

This. For instance, one of my players is an absolute spelling/grammar nazi. He will notice any mistake, no matter how obscure or how trivial. He'd almost certainly not give feedback on anything else whatsoever.

Good paid tester? Not really. No breadth at all. Good volunteer tester? Yes.

People vary wildly. Throw enough people at something, and they'll find things you never even considered. Sure, a good chunk of the feedback will be worthless, but you'll get plenty of good stuff.

The fact that an open beta can be marketing as well is just another benefit. There is no such thing as too much marketing for a game.

Fhaolan

2011-04-04, 12:53 PM

People vary wildly. Throw enough people at something, and they'll find things you never even considered. Sure, a good chunk of the feedback will be worthless, but you'll get plenty of good stuff.

Having worked on a team that did precisely this, I have to say it works. The main problem is that it takes a fairly significantly skilled triage team to filter through all the drek to find the good stuff, and unfortunately that's the part that is rarely funded correctly.

The Cat Goddess

2011-04-04, 01:23 PM

In games I run, "Rule Zero" is the "Look, if you can't show me the rule in the book, then it works this way" rule.

I also disagree with the "all DM rolls are in the open" mindset. For my groups, the story is more important than the die rolls. Sometimes, it's unavoidable ("what do you mean, your Cleric failed his save vs. the Bodak?"), and sometimes it is avoidable ('they're supposed to catch this guy, but I rolled a 20...' "Okay, the evil acolyte fails his save vs. Hold Person.").

I agree with this. D&D has a few abilities that only "work" if the player knows the DC before the roll. Basically every martial type has Power Attack and Power Attack only works if you can make an informed choice.

(Or if you have Shock Trooper or you can make touch attacks for weapon damage, but anyway.)

Uh...

Sorry, the idea that the characters should automatically know the AC of the monsters they're fighting so they can pick the optimum amount of Power Attack every time is LAME. I certainly would not allow it in my games, nor would I want someone to allow it in the games I play in. Sure, you should be able to guess a range... "That's an Orc in Platemail... probably AC 18-20." But not "That's an Orc in +2 Nimble Platemail... we know he's got a +2 Ring of Protection and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, so he's got an AC of 25. If I Power Attack for 5, I'll still hit him on an 5!"

Yora

2011-04-04, 01:31 PM

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 01:32 PM

Sorry, the idea that the characters should automatically know the AC of the monsters they're fighting so they can pick the optimum amount of Power Attack every time is LAME. I certainly would not allow it in my games, nor would I want someone to allow it in the games I play in. Sure, you should be able to guess a range... "That's an Orc in Platemail... probably AC 18-20." But not "That's an Orc in +2 Nimble Platemail... we know he's got a +2 Ring of Protection and a +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, so he's got an AC of 25. If I Power Attack for 5, I'll still hit him on an 5!"

I don't think anyone ever stated that they are entitled to the complete NPC build before a die is rolled.

Only that there is nothing wrong with them deducing stats from rolls. This is...a very old practice in D&D. And taking actions based on those deductions is also quite logical.

Yukitsu

2011-04-04, 01:33 PM

The real problem comes up with things like "Please roll for Sense Motive. So, you have a 2. Everything seems legit."
You can't make all rolls in the open, that makes a lot of adventures very unfun to play.

Depends on the quality of the players. My group is willing to laugh and roll with it.

And then we find out the guy wasn't lying, and any number at all including a 20 would have told us the exact same thing anyway.

Jayabalard

2011-04-04, 01:35 PM

Depends on the quality of the players. My group is willing to laugh and roll with it.No it really doesn't depend on skill... you've ruined the player's suspense/surprise when it turns out to be wrong. No amount of skill will make the player actually be surprised by finding out later that he was tricked.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 01:36 PM

Depends on the quality of the players. My group is willing to laugh and roll with it.

And then we find out the guy wasn't lying, and any number at all including a 20 would have told us the exact same thing anyway.

Yup. It's exactly the same as the "you find no traps". You then roll on through and find out the hard way if one is there. But...there might not be.

And there is still suspense.

FatR

2011-04-04, 02:28 PM

Most likely this is already covered by other posters, but I belive should say, that egular use of Rule Zero, save for adjudicating minor situations far from anything covered by the rules, signifies one of three things:

1)The GM does not know the rules well enough.
2)The GM is on a powertrip.
3)The system is an unplayable wreck and requires constant making **** up to run.

I've never seen a use of Rule Zero during resolution of major conflicts (including covert uses, like fudging) that does not fall into one of these cases. I'm speaking that as a GM too.

obliged_salmon

2011-04-04, 02:38 PM

No it really doesn't depend on skill... you've ruined the player's suspense/surprise when it turns out to be wrong. No amount of skill will make the player actually be surprised by finding out later that he was tricked.

If player asks to roll sense motive, he is already suspicious, and will not be terribly surprised if later betrayed. If player knows he failed sense motive, and willingly throws his character into peril anyway, he is awesome.

tonberrian

2011-04-04, 03:26 PM

If player asks to roll sense motive, he is already suspicious, and will not be terribly surprised if later betrayed.

But there's still the suspense of not knowing success or failure, which is enjoyable in and of itself, which open rolling takes away.

If player knows he failed sense motive, and willingly throws his character into peril anyway, he is awesome.

Maybe, but there's no suspense there. If he knows he rolled low, or that the GM rolled high, the player's going to expect sudden but inevitable betrayal on some level.

It's all a balance of the story as how it pertains to the characters versus how it pertains to the players. I think that hidden rolls is more immersive, and that's something I desire from a game.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-04, 03:35 PM

But there's still the suspense of not knowing success or failure, which is enjoyable in and of itself, which open rolling takes away.

Well, you don't have to tell them the DC for everything. Now, smart players can sometimes calculate or estimate DCs, but those same players can also estimate odds even if the roll is hidden. Meh.

Maybe, but there's no suspense there. If he knows he rolled low, or that the GM rolled high, the player's going to expect sudden but inevitable betrayal on some level.

Does the player know all the modifiers involved? Probably not. So, he may have suspicions, but he certainly doesn't necessarily know what the result is. Skill modifiers vary wildly.

And just because they don't sense anything wrong....that doesn't guarantee betrayal. NPCs can be honest folk too.

Plenty of reason for suspense still.

The Big Dice

2011-04-04, 04:07 PM

Well, you don't have to tell them the DC for everything. Now, smart players can sometimes calculate or estimate DCs, but those same players can also estimate odds even if the roll is hidden. Meh.
<Snip>

Plenty of reason for suspense still.
Knowing that you failed automatically removes suspense from the equation. I'd say rolling in the open removes suspense. If you as a player know that you failed an opposed roll, it will inevitably colour your next move to some extent. And that's not a slur against players, that's human nature.

Yukitsu

2011-04-04, 05:40 PM

Don't ever tell a player "you succeeded" or "you failed". Just describe the results. If he rolled a 2 and totalled a 3, if you say "You think he's telling the truth" you're just as in the dark as if you never rolled. The only time the result is foregone is when you say "you know he's lying." which is on a pass only.

If they only have to roll vs. actual lies, there's no suspense anyway. You can only build suspense if you constantly have them roll vs. truths as well.

Talakeal

2011-04-04, 05:54 PM

The Cat Goddess

2011-04-05, 12:41 PM

There are only a few times when I roll behind the screen. One is if they would get false knowledge on a bad enough roll and I don't think the player is a good enough role-player to act on it knowing it is false. The other is when they don't know that the roll is taking place, for example I make a spot check for them to passively notice something or roll the stealth check of an enemy sneaking up on them.

Of course, if I am rolling a lot of dice, for example the enemies attack rolls in a massed combat, I won't necessarily call out each one, but that is simply a time saver.

The only time I do not tell my players the difficulty of a roll before hand is if they shouldn't know if they succeeded or failed, for example on a search or a sense motive check when they won't know if they didn't find something or it simply isn't there. My players have problems with trust and this helps ease some of the tension, and it makes it a lot easier to run action points used to give a bonus on a roll, feats like power attack, and limited use abilities or items that give a bonus on a roll.

See, the problem there is that sometimes it's important for the players to agnonize over "should I Power Attack for 5 or 10?" or "Do I need to use True Strike against this thing?"

Example:
Player: "I attack the monster. I have a total of +18 to hit."
GM: "Okay, you need a 5 to hit."
Player: "I only need a 5? Okay, then I'm going to Power Attack for 5. Now I need a 10 to hit!"
GM: "Wait, what? Your character doesn't know that yet!"
Player: "But you just told me!"

Better:
Player: "I attack the monster. I have a total of +18 to hit."
GM: "Okay. You've never fought these things before, but their rubbery flesh and shambling walk seem to indicate that they're not too hard to hit."
Player: "Hmm... I think I'll risk it and Power Attack for my full 10. I rolled a 13, that gives me a 21!"
GM: "Ooo... close, but no. Your powerful swing lacks the precision required to score a solid hit."
Player: "Close, eh? Better reduce my Power Attack to 5 next round."

Tyndmyr

2011-04-05, 12:44 PM

Player: "I only need a 5? Okay, then I'm going to Power Attack for 5. Now I need a 10 to hit!"
GM: "Wait, what? Your character doesn't know that yet!"

I'm not gonna bother my head about how a character knows to power attack for 5.

My usual melee characters don't even know about BaB and hp!

dsmiles

2011-04-05, 02:45 PM

See, the problem there is that sometimes it's important for the players to agnonize over "should I Power Attack for 5 or 10?" or "Do I need to use True Strike against this thing?"

Example:
Player: "I attack the monster. I have a total of +18 to hit."
GM: "Okay, you need a 5 to hit."
Player: "I only need a 5? Okay, then I'm going to Power Attack for 5. Now I need a 10 to hit!"
GM: "Wait, what? Your character doesn't know that yet!"
Player: "But you just told me!"

Better:
Player: "I attack the monster. I have a total of +18 to hit."
GM: "Okay. You've never fought these things before, but their rubbery flesh and shambling walk seem to indicate that they're not too hard to hit."
Player: "Hmm... I think I'll risk it and Power Attack for my full 10. I rolled a 13, that gives me a 21!"
GM: "Ooo... close, but no. Your powerful swing lacks the precision required to score a solid hit."
Player: "Close, eh? Better reduce my Power Attack to 5 next round."

Nope. Players roll the dice and tell me what AC they hit. I tell them whether they hit or miss the monster. If they chose to power attack for 10 that time and missed, I guess that means they'll power attack for 5 next time. Works out just fine for my group.

Talakeal

2011-04-05, 03:00 PM

Karoht

2011-04-05, 03:44 PM

I guess if you feel the need to make life even harder for melee characters, a pain in the butt for anyone with limited usage bonuses to die roles, and waste time (the extra "I hit DC XXX, do I succeed? And the response will add up if you have to do it 100 times a session).
Just make damn sure you calculated the enemies AC correctly, and if your players are anything like mine (I hope they aren't) be prepared for a lot of accusations of cheating.
All in all it just seems like a huge pain in the butt for both the DM and the players with no gain.

On a similar note, do you let player's keep a tally of the total damage they have done to determine HP? That used to bug me when players did that, but then I started just telling them the monsters HP when they asked and I found that it made the game better for everyone.

@AC-Once one player at the table knows that a 24 will hit and a 22 didn't, they sort of all have a rough idea.

@Hit Points-I track it in my head or I tally damage on the enemy's sheet/s or notepad. If I'm using my whiteboard for initiative order and the like, I'll usually mark player and enemy damage taken right there on the board next to the initiative. Which makes for some comedy if a player forgets what the number in green is supposed to be and adds it to the red numbers and thinks that they've taken more damage than they have hit points. Hilarious in low levels BTW.
And if the player figures out the AC by trial and error, I'll mark it on the board too in Black, along with any other saves that they figure out.

dsmiles

2011-04-05, 05:29 PM

I guess if you feel the need to make life even harder for melee characters, a pain in the butt for anyone with limited usage bonuses to die roles, and waste time (the extra "I hit DC XXX, do I succeed? And the response will add up if you have to do it 100 times a session).
Just make damn sure you calculated the enemies AC correctly, and if your players are anything like mine (I hope they aren't) be prepared for a lot of accusations of cheating.
All in all it just seems like a huge pain in the butt for both the DM and the players with no gain.It's really not a big deal, both of the DMs (myself, and the other DM) in my group do it this way. We try to keep as much meta-gaming knowledge out of the player's hands as possible. Yeah, eventually they're going to figure out it's AC, but that's no big deal either. We just don't make it common knowledge.

On a similar note, do you let player's keep a tally of the total damage they have done to determine HP? That used to bug me when players did that, but then I started just telling them the monsters HP when they asked and I found that it made the game better for everyone.Nope. When it dies, it dies, players (again, in my group both of the DMs do it this way) have no need to know how many hit points a thing has. Sometimes players figure it out, but most of the time it's just, "keep going 'till it's mush."

Same thing goes for skill check DC's, and saving throws. (Hell, half the skill check results are behind the screen, to begin with.) All the numbers stay on the DM's side of the screen. None of the players complain (about not having the numbers), and the DMs never complain (about everything they have to keep track of). It's the way our group operates, and none of us would ever even consider asking for those numbers. It's the way we were all brought up in the game. Three of us started gaming in the early 80s, and the other one is one player's son, so we teach him to play the way we play (since he only games with us, anyways).

Tyndmyr

2011-04-06, 08:10 AM

Karoht

2011-04-06, 10:49 AM

I don't outright tell them what the hp are. I don't stop them from keeping track, either. Meh. They can write down whatever info they want.

Granted, you get the occasional player with encyclopediac knowledge of the monster manual, but all that means is it's time to branch out a bit and pick some new monsters, or perhaps refluff or advance some.

"Yes it's a zombie. Who has the following template. Also, because taking that template allows them to retain things like their memories and therefore experience, they all figured that having class levels would be a prudent idea. Enjoy your ascended fighter/rogue/monk zombies. Now with skeletal ranger support."

Yukitsu

2011-04-06, 11:18 AM

"Yes it's a zombie. Who has the following template. Also, because taking that template allows them to retain things like their memories and therefore experience, they all figured that having class levels would be a prudent idea. Enjoy your ascended fighter/rogue/monk zombies. Now with skeletal ranger support."

I do this so often my players were amazed when they fought a horde of normal zombies.

BRC

2011-04-06, 11:41 AM

I usually don't tell my PC's numbers. If a fight goes on for long enough, or a monster has an ability they keep using (Like poison), i'll eventually tell them the monster's AC or the ability DC, just to speed things along. I never give them HP numbers, but I give them a general idea of how well the monster is doing. I say things like "He's hurt, but he doesn't seem to mind" or "That attack seemed to have really hurt them", or "They are barely standing".

dsmiles

2011-04-06, 11:44 AM

I say things like "He's hurt, but he doesn't seem to mind" or "That attack seemed to have really hurt them", or "They are barely standing".Ditto. I prefer descriptions over numbers. Numbers tend to hurt my immersion.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-06, 11:45 AM

I tend to do that too, usually. Numbers are given out only when it is funny to do so.

Karoht

2011-04-06, 12:41 PM

I do this so often my players were amazed when they fought a horde of normal zombies.Then you're doing it right. =D

Also, yes, descriptions > numbers. I hate it though, when certain players go, "thats nice, what's his hit points at" or "thats nice, what's the DC?" Oh well.

Serenity

2011-04-06, 07:46 PM

To me it's as simple as this: Rule Zero is a GM's ability to be a GM. If, as a GM, you have ever disallowed a class, race, feat, or skill from the rulebooks; instituted homebrew or house rules; or made any kind of rules call not explicitly covered by the rules, you have used Rule Zero.

The basic social contract of D&D, to me, is that the players agree to give power to the GM, to create the world, interpret the rules, and generally make playing possible. This power is unlimited and absolute...but the GM can only continue to exercise it as long as the players agree to be bound by it; if he does not use it wisely, the players will take it from him and give it to somebody else.

Yukitsu

2011-04-06, 08:08 PM

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-06, 08:10 PM

Yukitsu

2011-04-06, 08:19 PM

Those are qualities that the DM should have before you slap the label on him. :smallamused:

That's asking a lot of a DM, most people despite assertions to the contrary are terrible at reading what other people enjoy, or rather, what makes those things enjoyable to those people. A lot more than asking them to compromise, talking to the players or listen to them. Actually, I don't think a DM would ever learn that if all he did was shoot them down and say "Shut up, rule 0."

Randomatic

2011-04-06, 08:24 PM

That's asking a lot of a DM, most people despite assertions to the contrary are terrible at reading what other people enjoy, or rather, what makes those things enjoyable to those people. A lot more than asking them to compromise, talking to the players or listen to them. Actually, I don't think a DM would ever learn that if all he did was shoot them down and say "Shut up, rule 0."

I find that one of the worst parts of rule 0 is the typical idea that it gives a GM absolute power, or makes them a god of their game.

Most people aren't going to learn anything if they think that they're infallible, and it doesn't take very much to go from "The GM can change any rule they want, and they can never cheat" to "The GM is always right".

dsmiles

2011-04-06, 08:39 PM

Most people aren't going to learn anything if they think that they're infallible, and it doesn't take very much to go from "The GM can change any rule they want, and they can never cheat" to "The GM is always right".No it's not a big leap. There has to be trust there. (Which is why I only game with close friends, to begin with.) But I am absolutely not stating that I agree that "there is no rule 0."

Talakeal

2011-04-06, 08:59 PM

Randomatic

2011-04-06, 09:06 PM

Reading your player's wants and expectations is something that is very important for a GM, and I consider it the area of my game which needs the most improving. That said, it is mostly a problem in adventure design and flow, and I think that "rule 0" has very little to do with it. Imo a sound mechanical knowledge or ability to assess fairness critically are far more important aspects of a GM than reading expectations when it comes to rule zero.

I find it easier to just ask what the players wants and expectations are than try to guess. That's usually one of the first things talked about before starting a new campaign in my group, figuring out what type of game everyone is interested in, then doing any design work needed. It's immensely helpful when you have everyone on the same page. At least when everyone actually knows what they want ahead of time.

dsmiles

2011-04-06, 09:13 PM

Reading your player's wants and expectations is something that is very important for a GM, and I consider it the area of my game which needs the most improving. That said, it is mostly a problem in adventure design and flow, and I think that "rule 0" has very little to do with it. Imo a sound mechanical knowledge or ability to assess fairness critically are far more important aspects of a GM than reading expectations when it comes to rule zero.
The way to improve that, which I have personally found to be pretty effective, is learn to read their expressions as they perform certain actions. The more excited they look about doing something, the more I try to include it in my games. If their interest starts to go downhill, it's time to switch it up a bit. If you can get them jumping out of their seats in excitement, that's a sign that you've supplied them with a good game. And that is what makes all the extra work of being a DM worth it.
When you get them to care about the campaign world they're in, you've created a quality product. When they cry over the death of an NPC hireling, obviously you're doing something right. I love my players...

Talakeal

2011-04-06, 09:24 PM

The way to improve that, which I have personally found to be pretty effective, is learn to read their expressions as they perform certain actions. The more excited they look about doing something, the more I try to include it in my games. If their interest starts to go downhill, it's time to switch it up a bit. If you can get them jumping out of their seats in excitement, that's a sign that you've supplied them with a good game. And that is what makes all the extra work of being a DM worth it.
When you get them to care about the campaign world they're in, you've created a quality product. When they cry over the death of an NPC hireling, obviously you're doing something right. I love my players...

I would love to, but I have a visual processing disability, and reading people's faces is extremely difficult for me unless they are doing something dramatic.

Toofey

2011-04-07, 01:46 AM

Explain that too them and ask them to let you know how you're doing at the end of each session. Worst case, the end of session review will let you know where to improve.

Serenity

2011-04-07, 05:31 PM

Frankly, if I ever had a DM try to tell me his power was "unlimited and absolute", I'd take him out back and adjust his perspective. He's just a guy, with as deeply flawed nature as the rest of the people at the table. There's no reason that putting the title "DM" on a guy would grant them some form of superior "here's how the game must be played" insight into the game. And it definitely does not give them any insight into what the people sitting at the table think would be fun.

You're rather ignoring the second part of that statement--where the DM's unlimited power can disappear in an instant if he ever tries to abuse it. The DM has no 'special insight' per se, but there is every reason that putting the title of DM on him gives him supreme power. In the D&D model, at least, the game can happen without any one individual player. No game can happen without the GM. It is his duty to create the world and everything that inhabits it besides the PCs. It his job to arbitrate disputes, interpret and apply the rules. You say the DM cannot 'know' what will make the game fun for the players...but if he doesn't have a damn good idea, he shouldn't be the GM, because, as the guy who makes the game happen, making the game fun for the players is the defining duty of the GM.

The GM has absolute power to define the world and the rules of his game. He has the responsibility to use that power to make the game interesting and fun, because if his players aren't enjoying themselves, they will refuse to be subject to his absolute power.

As a GM, I encourage input and advice from my players. I welcome a concise appeal when they think I've made a wrong call. If they're having a huge problem, I want them to tell me. But when push comes to shove, my decision is what matters when it comes to the rules. I reserve the right to shut down arguments and make a ruling. i reserve the right to decide what exists and doesn't exist in my world, and what is allowed in my game. I reserve the right to be the final authority on the rules. If you don't accept that, you never wanted me to be the DM in the first place.

Dr. Steve

2011-04-07, 07:54 PM

I don't know if this has been cited, but have those of you arguing about rule 0 actually read it?

The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into
your characters and the world they explore. While they are
designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might
find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your
gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.
You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters
have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.
The Game Master and players should always discuss any
rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how
the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the
final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared
experience, and all of the players should contribute their
thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

This is the Pathfinder version. I always took it to mean that RPG's are in fact that, Role-Playing Games, and so are not infallible or perfect. Nothing is and rule 0 is just a way for game designers to say "no" to cheese, wherever it might appear and to give DMs the power to judge this for themselves. It also gives DMs the power to add flow and finery to the game by allowing actions with rules made up on the fly (the are usually temporary ones). That said, "rule zero" is notoriously misused in the gaming community as a way for bad DMs to "fix" things and it then becomes a crutch for their style of DMing.

tl;dr: Like anything else in life, "Rule Zero" can be used well just as well as it can be misused. The positive and negative effects of "Rule Zero" are determined only by the group that uses it and can be judged no further than that group.

Yukitsu

2011-04-07, 10:57 PM

As a GM, I encourage input and advice from my players. I welcome a concise appeal when they think I've made a wrong call. If they're having a huge problem, I want them to tell me. But when push comes to shove, my decision is what matters when it comes to the rules. I reserve the right to shut down arguments and make a ruling. i reserve the right to decide what exists and doesn't exist in my world, and what is allowed in my game. I reserve the right to be the final authority on the rules. If you don't accept that, you never wanted me to be the DM in the first place.

If it comes to push or shove, you're doing something seriously wrong. Either playing with a group who absolutely has to try to abuse the system for their benefit, or you're the kind of DM who's trying to dictate what's fun for other people, despite protests to the contrary.

And again, other than a guy who has problems with D&D physics because they don't apply to magic, and one guy who's only real recourse was to kick out the player, I don't get what issue a good DM would have that would require him to pull an authority card instead of talking to the players. Can you give examples here? And when you state a rule, and the table chimes in and says "that's stupid." why exactly are you arguing with them? Because "you know what's best"? Maybe if half of them like your interpretation, and the other half dislike it, but again, that's the sort of situation that requires communication.

I hear things like "My player was trying some trite little irrelevant thing, and I had to make up a rule on the spot, so rule-0." I don't get what that has to do with your authority. If you rule some guy decides to fill an entire barrel full of alchemist fire and launch it out a trebuchet, and you decide it deals 10d6 on a hit, and the player disagrees, it should do a d6 per bottle spent. I don't see why, in this case, the fact that the player's action falls out of the rules requires your authority. The fact is, it doesn't. It never does.

I'll accept rule-0 as a useful tool when someone finds me the perfect DM with seriously flawed players that he's forced to play with. Until then, the assumption that he was put there because of any inherent superiority is laughable, and any DM that thinks his position entitles him to that sense of superiority needs a reality check.

Toofey

2011-04-07, 11:16 PM

I hear things like "My player was trying some trite little irrelevant thing, and I had to make up a rule on the spot, so rule-0." I don't get what that has to do with your authority. If you rule some guy decides to fill an entire barrel full of alchemist fire and launch it out a trebuchet, and you decide it deals 10d6 on a hit, and the player disagrees, it should do a d6 per bottle spent. I don't see why, in this case, the fact that the player's action falls out of the rules requires your authority. The fact is, it doesn't. It never does.
How much damage does it do then?

Tyndmyr

2011-04-07, 11:25 PM

How much damage does it do then?

Per the rules, a bottle o' alchemist's fire does 1d6 fire damage. Rules for larger bottles do exist, actually...but if you pay the price of the lower damage bottles, that's the effect you get. If you use lots of them, you get the same effect over and over again. May not be fantastic if they have fire resist.

Now, if you want to actually shell out money to have someone competent make you awesome seige engine ammo, you can do that. Stormwrack and UA are the appropriate books, IIRC.

D&D has a great, great number of rules. Nearly anything possible to do can be modeled within them. It may not be done perfectly...or even terribly well, in a few cases, but the rules are what gets used to come up with anything unique. You don't just spout off random numbers when you make up an item, you compare to existing ones to see what's appropriate. If there is an unresolvable disagreement, well...you can always stick to the things already in the book.

tonberrian

2011-04-07, 11:29 PM

Are there situations that come up where the rules can be interpreted different ways, and your group decides to interpret them in one way or another? Do you agree on house rules? If the answer to either of these is yes, then you use Rule Zero in some form.

You think that because a group makes decisions instead of the GM makes it totally different? Fine. We'll take that as the default state of Rule Zero. What makes groups who decide to houserule that power to the GM alone wrong?

Game Mastering is part of the delicate social interaction that is the game. A group will tolerate a certain amount of bad GMing for various reasons (investment in the story, attachment to characters, not wanting to GM themselves, etc.). If a GM is bad enough, a group will disband. If you won't play a GM because he makes the rules at his table, find another GM. Not all players and GM's are compatible, and nopony's making you stay. There's obviously GM's out there that are to your taste, and you can always GM yourself.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-07, 11:33 PM

Are there situations that come up where the rules can be interpreted different ways, and your group decides to interpret them in one way or another? Do you agree on house rules? If the answer to either of these is yes, then you use Rule Zero in some form.

Not at all. Rule zero does not define the basic capacity of people to agree with each other.

I suppose someone *could* interpret the rules of chess in a different, wrong way. That doesn't mean that rule zero is a part of chess.

You think that because a group makes decisions instead of the GM makes it totally different? Fine. We'll take that as the default state of Rule Zero. What makes groups who decide to houserule that power to the GM alone wrong?

It's not about right or wrong.

But Rule Zero is a GM-only ability in it's traditional form. Therefore, a group-made decision is not rule zero. If a player comes up with an idea for a rule, and it's accepted by general assent, that doesn't fit the pattern of rule zero. It certainly doesn't fit the justification for rule zero given in the 3.5 DMG.

tonberrian

2011-04-07, 11:37 PM

But Rule Zero is a GM-only ability in it's traditional form. Therefore, a group-made decision is not rule zero. If a player comes up with an idea for a rule, and it's accepted by general assent, that doesn't fit the pattern of rule zero. It certainly doesn't fit the justification for rule zero given in the 3.5 DMG.

Any situation that you bring up that has the group decide on a situation can also be spun so that the DM has the final decision. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

Gan The Grey

2011-04-08, 04:44 AM

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 08:03 AM

Any situation that you bring up that has the group decide on a situation can also be spun so that the DM has the final decision. There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

You can certainly use either decision process for everything, yes.
They're still fairly different in practice.

The Big Dice

2011-04-08, 08:04 AM

But Rule Zero is a GM-only ability in it's traditional form. Therefore, a group-made decision is not rule zero. If a player comes up with an idea for a rule, and it's accepted by general assent, that doesn't fit the pattern of rule zero. It certainly doesn't fit the justification for rule zero given in the 3.5 DMG.
When the GM says "That's what we're going to do." then that is Rule 0. The Gm is the one with the final say, the Decider to borrow a name from American Dad. The group might suggest, but the GM has the final say.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 08:15 AM

When the GM says "That's what we're going to do." then that is Rule 0. The Gm is the one with the final say, the Decider to borrow a name from American Dad. The group might suggest, but the GM has the final say.

If you are using rule zero, then this is correct.

If you are using a group system where the GM can say "this is the way it is", and be overruled by the rest of the group, then you're clearly not using rule zero.

tonberrian

2011-04-08, 08:36 AM

You can certainly use either decision process for everything, yes.
They're still fairly different in practice.

Not particularly, no.

Serenity

2011-04-08, 08:55 AM

If it comes to push or shove, you're doing something seriously wrong. Either playing with a group who absolutely has to try to abuse the system for their benefit, or you're the kind of DM who's trying to dictate what's fun for other people, despite protests to the contrary.

And again, other than a guy who has problems with D&D physics because they don't apply to magic, and one guy who's only real recourse was to kick out the player, I don't get what issue a good DM would have that would require him to pull an authority card instead of talking to the players. Can you give examples here? And when you state a rule, and the table chimes in and says "that's stupid." why exactly are you arguing with them? Because "you know what's best"? Maybe if half of them like your interpretation, and the other half dislike it, but again, that's the sort of situation that requires communication.

I hear things like "My player was trying some trite little irrelevant thing, and I had to make up a rule on the spot, so rule-0." I don't get what that has to do with your authority. If you rule some guy decides to fill an entire barrel full of alchemist fire and launch it out a trebuchet, and you decide it deals 10d6 on a hit, and the player disagrees, it should do a d6 per bottle spent. I don't see why, in this case, the fact that the player's action falls out of the rules requires your authority. The fact is, it doesn't. It never does.

I'll accept rule-0 as a useful tool when someone finds me the perfect DM with seriously flawed players that he's forced to play with. Until then, the assumption that he was put there because of any inherent superiority is laughable, and any DM that thinks his position entitles him to that sense of superiority needs a reality check.

It's the DM's job, explicitly called out in the rules of the game, to interpret the rules when there is an ambiguity. So, yes, when an action falls outside the rules of the game, it is not just the power, but the duty of the GM to decide how it works. It always does. A good GM considers his players input as well as checking against similar existing rules. But a good GM will also not allow his players to bully him into allowing something broken, or at odds with the rules he has laid down for his campaign world, and a good GM knows to put an end to rules arguments when they threaten to overtake the game.

As a GM, I don't think I'm personally superior. But by joining my game, you accepted my authority as arbiter, lawmaker, court of final appeal, etc. Doubly so if you asked me to GM.

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 09:10 AM

Real life is rarely so black-and-white as you would like to make it, and doing so hurts your position. He is saying that, when it comes to disputes, it is the DM's job to make the final decision that will ultimately move the game along. 'When push comes to shove' is simply a turn of phrase that means 'when it comes down to it' or 'ultimately' even.

I often encounter situations where my thoughts/ideas/expectations butt heads with those of my players. Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes they are. Sometimes no one can agree, and in those situations, when push comes to shove, it is within my power and part of my responsibility as DM to Rule Zero the situation for the sake of moving the game along. Mature players accept this because, ultimately, D&D is just a game.

This doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to assume you'll get into these situations, and somehow by being DM you're ultimately right about your decision. The entire premise of rule-0 presupposes that.

If you've got a rules arbitration, you've got a few scenarios. The players agree with you, in which case, why are you pulling authority? The players disagree, in which case, why are you suddenly in a better position to judge the situation than the players? If the players are all split, and actually care about the issue, why are you shutting down conversation about this issue?

Be it the players agreeing, disagreeing, or split, I don't see the DM as the final arbiter as necessary.

It's the DM's job, explicitly called out in the rules of the game, to interpret the rules when there is an ambiguity. So, yes, when an action falls outside the rules of the game, it is not just the power, but the duty of the GM to decide how it works. It always does. A good GM considers his players input as well as checking against similar existing rules. But a good GM will also not allow his players to bully him into allowing something broken, or at odds with the rules he has laid down for his campaign world, and a good GM knows to put an end to rules arguments when they threaten to overtake the game.

Just because they say the DM has those roles, doesn't mean that rule-0 is beneficial to the game. I find it to be actively harmful. As for players bullying the DM into allowing stupid broken things, the problem is the players, get more mature players. I don't see why I should DM for a bunch of players who just want to all play as pun-pun or something similar, and if a player ever expressed the desire, I wouldn't ban the build, I'd ban him.

As a GM, I don't think I'm personally superior. But by joining my game, you accepted my authority as arbiter, lawmaker, court of final appeal, etc. Doubly so if you asked me to GM.

Sitting down at the table, I tend to veto games where the DM takes in that kind of attitude. Unless the DM has vastly superior mechanical and balance knowledge, and understands what makes the game fun for the people at the table, he's gonna make a stupid ruling at some point. The fact that he thinks he's entitled to that ruling simply because he's the DM always gets on my nerve.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 09:19 AM

I agree entirely with Yukitsu. If people disagree, and care enough to argue about it, why should I make em stop? I suppose you could end up with a group that would do this all the time...and such a group I would not enjoy, but it then falls into the category of every other group I don't get along with. I just don't play with them, instead of trying to force them all to change.

icastflare!

2011-04-08, 09:25 AM

The gm should, nay, must use rule 0 to make the game an enjoyable experience for all.

The players should accept the rule 0 if it can and will lead to an enjoyable experience for all.

This. Many a time have I bended the rules slightly to make it better.

The Big Dice

2011-04-08, 09:37 AM

If you are using rule zero, then this is correct.

If you are using a group system where the GM can say "this is the way it is", and be overruled by the rest of the group, then you're clearly not using rule zero.

You're also not playing a traditional RPG. Or rather, a conventional one.

Totally Guy

2011-04-08, 09:45 AM

You're also not playing a traditional RPG. Or rather, a conventional one.

Is that what we were talking about?

Oh...

Someone should have said...:smallwink:

Killer Angel

2011-04-08, 10:13 AM

I often encounter situations where my thoughts/ideas/expectations butt heads with those of my players. Sometimes I'm wrong. Sometimes they are. Sometimes no one can agree, and in those situations, when push comes to shove, it is within my power and part of my responsibility as DM to Rule Zero the situation for the sake of moving the game along. Mature players accept this because, ultimately, D&D is just a game.

If you've got a rules arbitration, you've got a few scenarios. The players agree with you, in which case, why are you pulling authority? The players disagree, in which case, why are you suddenly in a better position to judge the situation than the players? If the players are all split, and actually care about the issue, why are you shutting down conversation about this issue?

Because it's no fun to play "Q&A by RAW", if you doesn't have Curmudgeon at hand.
When a player comes with something improvised and unexpected, based on unclear rules, or when players argue and debate on what's allowed by a manoveur because "that word in the description" can be interpreted in one way or another, picking up their manuals, then you, as DM, shouldn't stop the game for half an hour to eviscerate the problem.
Nothing wrong to stop for a couple of minutes, but after that, if it wasn't sufficient, move the game along. After the session, there will be time to clear the question.

Be it the players agreeing, disagreeing, or split, I don't see the DM as the final arbiter as necessary.

Another way to see this is: "Is a good DM, the one that isn't able / doesn't want to take the responsibility to be an arbiter and choose an option?"

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 10:35 AM

The last thing I want, is some off hand, poorly thought out barely discussed call on something the table evidently cares about just to keep the game moving. If the game is interesting, a loss of momentum isn't going to cripple or hurt it, and if the table is genuinely interested in debating it, you can't honestly say that you're doing it because the players don't want to waste time talking about it. They obviously do.

Another way to see this is: "Is a good DM, the one that isn't able / doesn't want to take the responsibility to be an arbiter and choose an option?"

A good DM is someone that never needs to be an arbiter or choose an option.

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-08, 10:41 AM

A good DM is someone that never needs to be an arbiter or choose an option.

No, that's a DM with a good group.

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 10:55 AM

No, that's a DM with a good group.

Yeah, but I've been saying this entire thread, that you shouldn't waste your time playing with bad ones.

Killer Angel

2011-04-08, 11:20 AM

The last thing I want, is some off hand, poorly thought out barely discussed call on something the table evidently cares about just to keep the game moving. If the game is interesting, a loss of momentum isn't going to cripple or hurt it, and if the table is genuinely interested in debating it, you can't honestly say that you're doing it because the players don't want to waste time talking about it. They obviously do.

Well, I suppose it depends from case to case.
All the group is debating? probably you're right.
2 players are arguing between themselves and the others look bored at you? it's time for a call.

Anyway, every time I made a call "on the run", I let the question open for a more "official" ruling later.

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-08, 11:23 AM

Yeah, but I've been saying this entire thread, that you shouldn't waste your time playing with bad ones.

In a perfect world, it would be possible to do this. But you gotta take your groups where you get em.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 11:28 AM

In a perfect world, it would be possible to do this. But you gotta take your groups where you get em.

I disagree. The world is filled with people, many of whom are good folk. If both the groups I played with vanished entirely tomorrow, I could find a new group to play with that I liked within the week.

The majority of players in existence really do prefer to game instead of drag out arguments over trivial rules constantly. Building a group of such people is easy.

Randomatic

2011-04-08, 11:39 AM

You're also not playing a traditional RPG. Or rather, a conventional one.

Why does it matter if a game is traditional or conventional? In my experience the non-traditional games tend to have better designed mechanics, and I have more fun with them. That's part of the argument that's been made against rule 0, just because the most common games incorporate it doesn't mean that you need to have it in every game.

In a perfect world, it would be possible to do this. But you gotta take your groups where you get em.

I've been gaming long enough to realize that not playing RPG's is better than playing bad RPG's.

The Big Dice

2011-04-08, 11:49 AM

Why does it matter if a game is traditional or conventional. In my experience the non-traditional games tend to have better designed mechanics, and I have more fun with them. That's part of the argument that's been made against rule 0, just because the most common games incorporate it doesn't mean that you need to have it in every game.
The argument against Rule 0 usually (in this thread) boils down to not wanting a GM to have authority over the rules that are being used. Which to me is just ridiculous. Nothing ruins the moment more than stopping for a ten minute search through books in the middle of combat, to find some obscure thing that gets used once and then doesn't surface again for months. It's distracting, it spoils immersion and I don't care how interesting the game as a whole is, when the moment is lost if is almost impossible to get back.

Say yes, roll some dice and get on with things. Rules aren't that important, despite what the CCG mindset brought on by recent editions of RPGs might tell you.

I've been gaming long enough to realize that not playing RPG's is better than playing bad RPG's.
Sometimes compromises have to be reached.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 11:52 AM

The argument against Rule 0 usually (in this thread) boils down to not wanting a GM to have authority over the rules that are being used. Which to me is just ridiculous. Nothing ruins the moment more than stopping for a ten minute search through books in the middle of combat, to find some obscure thing that gets used once and then doesn't surface again for months. It's distracting, it spoils immersion and I don't care how interesting the game as a whole is, when the moment is lost if is almost impossible to get back.

That has absolutely nothing to do with tradition or convention. In short, you did not address what he asked you at all.

And if it takes ten minutes to find a rule in a book, you need to learn how to use the tool known as an index.

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-08, 11:52 AM

I've been gaming long enough to realize that not playing RPG's is better than playing bad RPG's.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes! :smallfurious:

Of course, that means you've been gaming since RPGs' heyday.

The Big Dice

2011-04-08, 11:58 AM

That has absolutely nothing to do with tradition or convention. In short, you did not address what he asked you at all.
The argument that was actually an expression of opinion, due to the use of the phrase "I have more fun with them." Which isn't relevant to the discussion, as it is simply a statement of personal preference.
And if it takes ten minutes to find a rule in a book, you need to learn how to use the tool known as an index.[/QUOTE]

Yes, the index in each of the Complete series of D&D books are very handy. Oh wait, no they aren't because they don't exist. Spell lists are even worse, especially if it's a spell that you can't remember if it's in a Complete, a theme book like BoVD and it's definitely not in the Spell Compendium. Oh wait, I think it might be core after all. No, hang on, maybe it is in the Compendium after all.

So before you can use an index, an index needs to be both provided and, unlike the ones in many gaming books, it needs to be both thorough and properly cross referenced.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 12:22 PM

{Scrubbed}

Spell lists are even worse, especially if it's a spell that you can't remember if it's in a Complete, a theme book like BoVD and it's definitely not in the Spell Compendium. Oh wait, I think it might be core after all. No, hang on, maybe it is in the Compendium after all.

In this unlikely event, wherein a player is down to "It's in some book somewhere", because he didn't bother to keep track of his own character, everyone else in the group is going to laugh at him, and point out that he needs to keep track of his spells.

And google is remarkably fast. Even if it's a random spell name I've never heard before, it certainly isn't going to take me ten minutes to find out where it's from. This would be true even if I didn't have core essentially memorized.

{Scrubbed}

Randomatic

2011-04-08, 12:28 PM

The argument that was actually an expression of opinion, due to the use of the phrase "I have more fun with them."

Regardless of my personal opinion, why is it relevant if a game is traditional or conventional?

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-08, 12:30 PM

Regardless of my personal opinion, why is it relevant if a game is traditional or conventional?

Because this thread has devolved into pedantry? (Again).

Serenity

2011-04-08, 12:42 PM

This doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to assume you'll get into these situations, and somehow by being DM you're ultimately right about your decision.

I don't suppose I'm infallible. I suppose that I am the person who has been vested with the authority to make that decision. Presumably, I have that authority because my players believe that I have the right knowledge, instinct, and experience to make executive decisions (as well as the maturity to consider appeals).

Just because they say the DM has those roles, doesn't mean that rule-0 is beneficial to the game. I find it to be actively harmful. As for players bullying the DM into allowing stupid broken things, the problem is the players, get more mature players. I don't see why I should DM for a bunch of players who just want to all play as pun-pun or something similar, and if a player ever expressed the desire, I wouldn't ban the build, I'd ban him.

Those are the roles and duties assigned to a GM in every roleplaying system I've ever encountered, and I hold that the GM cannot fulfill them without Rule Zero. The duty of interpreting rules in the case of an ambiguity inherently gives the power of making alterations to the rules. The duty of creating the world inherently gives the power to define how it works and what exists.

Nor is the player bullying nearly so black and white as you make it out to be. Take your 'barrel of alchemist's fire' example. Of course it seems perfectly logical and reasonable, as the player is arguing, that it should deal 1d6 for every bottle of Alchemist's fire packed in there. On the other hand, the DM realizes that such an interpretation would allow someone to create a 100d6 splash weapon (attacking touch AC no less) for a mere 2000 gold. The player isn't trying to 'sneak something broken in', just following a perfectly logical line of reasoning and arriving at different conclusions, and an explanation may not suffice, without anyone being a jerk who's impossible to play with. or it's a dispute between two players, and the GM steps in to render judgment. Or, it may not even be about mechanics, but a dispute about flavor, what the GM is allowing in his world

Rule Zero will be unnecessary when someone devises a rules system which is both simple enough to be committed to everyone's memory, complex enough to cover every possible situation, and so well-balanced that it will never need amending. Until then, someone needs to arbitrate, interpret, and alter, and it's only sensible that those grave responsibilities--and the great power and authority that comes with them--are placed in the guy whose job it is to make the game happen and make it fun.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-08, 12:44 PM

Those are the roles and duties assigned to a GM in every roleplaying system I've ever encountered, and I hold that the GM cannot fulfill them without Rule Zero. The duty of interpreting rules in the case of an ambiguity inherently gives the power of making alterations to the rules. The duty of creating the world inherently gives the power to define how it works and what exists.

You need to experience a wider variety of roleplaying systems. Some systems don't even have a GM role.

dsmiles

2011-04-08, 12:57 PM

Talakeal

2011-04-08, 01:55 PM

As I said earlier, games that are too far to either the gamist or narrativist style are not the same thing as an RPG. They are too far removed to either capture my interest or for me to have any knowledge about them. The only time I have ever tried one of the new narrative style games with spirit of the century, where I was completely unable to figure out what I was supposed to be doing so I just sat there watching, and the group kicked me out after the first session for being useless.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with these games, they just aren't my cup of tea. I feel it is unfair to bring them into a debate about "rule 0" in traditional RPGs as what works in one game style is not what works in another.

Karoht

2011-04-08, 02:55 PM

I disagree. The world is filled with people, many of whom are good folk. If both the groups I played with vanished entirely tomorrow, I could find a new group to play with that I liked within the week.

The majority of players in existence really do prefer to game instead of drag out arguments over trivial rules constantly. Building a group of such people is easy.But this is just it. This is why people are typically quite willing to defer to Rule Zero, for sake of fast resolution to get back to the game. Some players are willing to accept a poor ruling for sake of quick resolution, others are not, some DM's are better at compromising, some aren't.

The DM I'm with right now, great guy but a bit junior. If he says "I'd rather we just do it this way for right now, and we'll look into that later" the party is usually willing to trust him and go with it, because yes, we all would rather play the game than go researching the rules snafu's. And we're willing to resolve such conflicts by taking a temporary ruling for the time being, and figuring out the issue later.

But please remember, not everyone is as lucky as you or I. I didn't play for years because I couldn't find a good group. And before my hiatus (approx 5 years) I had some pretty crappy groups.

MeeposFire

2011-04-08, 03:36 PM

Regardless of my personal opinion, why is it relevant if a game is traditional or conventional?

I think he is making an assumption that by "traditional" or "conventional" he is talking about games that have a chief storyteller in the DM or GM sort of vein. These games have a person that has final authority. This then would make games that do not have a person with strong personal authority by the rules a "non conventional" format. In terms of supporting evidence I think he has a fairly strong case since mot of the older big name games have this sort of figure hence the well known titles of DM, GM, and storyteller.

Personally I have found that having a person with stronger powers is very helpful. In my mind it is like comparing government styles in the US. The original Articles of Confederation lacked a strong executive and this was a big contributor to the failure of the country during that time. When they switched to the current constitution they gave the executive (President) much more power and gave the Federal government much more power in general. This allowed for better resolution of disputes and is one thing that allowed the country to succeed during that period.

I have found that if a player is going to be a pain about discussing things after I probably do not want to do it during the game. We can discuss things outside of the game to improve things or they can essentially "vote" me out of DMing. And sometimes it is better to game with some things you don't like then never gaming at all. I have limits but I do find it worth gaming with people even if it is not perfect and we need to discuss things.

Serenity

2011-04-08, 05:08 PM

You need to experience a wider variety of roleplaying systems. Some systems don't even have a GM role.

For the record, systems I have a modicum of experience with, if only from reading the rulebooks: Dungeons and Dragons (3.X, d20 Modern, 4e, Pathfinder), Shadowrun, Deadlands (as well as its d20 variant), World of Darkness (though I'm more familiar with the LARP iteration),Serenity, Unisystem Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a little bit of GURPS...browsed a bit of Mutants and Masterminds once, too. Is it a huge amount of experience? I'm sure it's not. But I feel like I can say that I've seen a fair cross section of major RPG systems, all of which give the GM that sort of power, more or less explicitly. That doesn't settle the issue of course. But it's not irrelevant, either.

Britter

2011-04-08, 05:21 PM

For the record, systems I have a modicum of experience with, if only from reading the rulebooks: Dungeons and Dragons (3.X, d20 Modern, 4e, Pathfinder), Shadowrun, Deadlands (as well as its d20 variant), World of Darkness (though I'm more familiar with the LARP iteration),Serenity, Unisystem Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a little bit of GURPS...browsed a bit of Mutants and Masterminds once, too. Is it a huge amount of experience? I'm sure it's not. But I feel like I can say that I've seen a fair cross section of major RPG systems, all of which give the GM that sort of power, more or less explicitly. That doesn't settle the issue of course. But it's not irrelevant, either.

With respect, most of these systems are pretty much similar in how they apply mechanics. Yes, the individual games do have different rulesets, but they share a pretty standard approach to gaming. I would recommend checking out games that diverge further from the DnD model, not because they are necessarily the best games ever or anything, but because they do illustrate how much variance there is in different approaches to gaming.

I would check out inSpectres, Primetime Adventures, 7th Sea, Apocalypse World, Burning Empires, Mouseguard, Dread, 3:16 Carnage Among the Stars, and similar small press games, if I were you. Again, they might not be the type of games that turn your crank. And that is ok. But they all have some rather drastic differences from DnD and other mainstream systems that are worth investigating, in my opinion. Many of them have specific limitations on GM power quite unlike mainline RPGs. Many of them explain why that is.

In essence, what I am saying is that, to me, your curriculum vitae is similar to that of someone who says "I have read all of Shakespeare's plays and I therefore understand theater." Without branching out away from the familiar model, you can never really be well-read in a subject.

Please, don't take any of this to imply I am disparaging your experience. I am certainly not. I am just saying that imo the systems you have been exposed to have a LOT of commonality in how they approach gaming, and that checking out more diverse games might prove to be entertaining for you, as well as illuminate the point of view some of us have expressed in this thread.

Serenity

2011-04-08, 05:31 PM

Ah, yeah, read 7th Sea too...and while it's been a while since I did, so my memory may be faulty, I don't recall anything indicating it had a different GM paradigm...

Britter

2011-04-08, 05:40 PM

Ah, yeah, read 7th Sea too...and while it's been a while since I did, so my memory may be faulty, I don't recall anything indicating it had a different GM paradigm...

The presence of Drama Dice in 7th Sea and the way they are exchanged between players and GM in play creates a rather interesting dynamic, but I would otherwise agree that it tends to be a more traditional game. Still, between drama die, the flexible stat/skill roll-and-keep system (which sadly fails to do exactly what it was meant to do, but is still interesting as a concept, imo) and the way death works (or doesn't, as it is very VERY hard to die in 7th Sea) it does have some significant differences from the more traditional model.

hence my qualifier of "many" of these systems having different GM roles. Not all of them do.

Still, in play, 7th Sea feels different to me than GURPS or any DnD edition (which I generally found to have a very similar table-feel).

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 06:12 PM

I don't suppose I'm infallible. I suppose that I am the person who has been vested with the authority to make that decision. Presumably, I have that authority because my players believe that I have the right knowledge, instinct, and experience to make executive decisions (as well as the maturity to consider appeals).

Ask around if people join a DM's game with that in mind, as opposed to because "it sounded like fun." I would bet more games get off the ground due to a fun sounding experience over any kind of awe held towards the DM's ability to arbitrate rules. Frankly, if I were made a DM based on the expectation that I'm good with the rules, and not that the players felt I was offering a fun game, I'd feel moderately offended.

Those are the roles and duties assigned to a GM in every roleplaying system I've ever encountered, and I hold that the GM cannot fulfill them without Rule Zero. The duty of interpreting rules in the case of an ambiguity inherently gives the power of making alterations to the rules.

That can be true that interpretation = alteration, but it's not often true. For example, the courts can interpret the law, but they can't alter the law.

More relevantly though, this doesn't say why this is either necessary, nor why it would make a better game. That it exists "because the books say it should" doesn't mean that it isn't harmful to the game and to DM perceptions of it. You're practically saying "it exists because it's necessary and it's necessary because it exists."

The duty of creating the world inherently gives the power to define how it works and what exists.

That's fine, but largely stepping away from the rules.

Nor is the player bullying nearly so black and white as you make it out to be. Take your 'barrel of alchemist's fire' example. Of course it seems perfectly logical and reasonable, as the player is arguing, that it should deal 1d6 for every bottle of Alchemist's fire packed in there. On the other hand, the DM realizes that such an interpretation would allow someone to create a 100d6 splash weapon (attacking touch AC no less) for a mere 2000 gold. The player isn't trying to 'sneak something broken in', just following a perfectly logical line of reasoning and arriving at different conclusions, and an explanation may not suffice, without anyone being a jerk who's impossible to play with. or it's a dispute between two players, and the GM steps in to render judgment. Or, it may not even be about mechanics, but a dispute about flavor, what the GM is allowing in his world

For starters, I don't see why a 100d6 damage attack for 2000 GP is a particular problem. It weighs 100 pounds, isn't a thrown weapon, and the rules for hitting a target squarely with a trebuchet means more odds to that being 2000 GP to slightly alter the scenery. I'm sure the players can find some creative means of making this practical, but I can't fathom why I would ever want to stimy that.

Rule Zero will be unnecessary when someone devises a rules system which is both simple enough to be committed to everyone's memory, complex enough to cover every possible situation, and so well-balanced that it will never need amending. Until then, someone needs to arbitrate, interpret, and alter, and it's only sensible that those grave responsibilities--and the great power and authority that comes with them--are placed in the guy whose job it is to make the game happen and make it fun.

Or when the DM doesn't think "Gotta press forward no matter how much the players hate my ruling, no discussion, my way or the highway." A severely flawed system can be completely reworked to the groups taste or the DMs taste. Which do you think is better for the enjoyment of the group?

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-08, 06:15 PM

Or when the DM doesn't think "Gotta press forward no matter how much the players hate my ruling, no discussion, my way or the highway." A severely flawed system can be completely reworked to the groups taste or the DMs taste. Which do you think is better for the enjoyment of the group?

Why are you automatically assuming the DM's taste and the group's taste are not in agreement?

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 06:16 PM

Why are you automatically assuming the DM's taste and the group's taste are not in agreement?

I think that's a given, when he has to make a ruling contrary to the will of the group via DM authority.

Sarco_Phage

2011-04-08, 06:19 PM

I think that's a given, when he has to make a ruling contrary to the will of the group via DM authority.

Assuming arbitration is what's happening here, and Rule Zero is brought into play, I don't see why all the players are automatically on the same side.

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 06:25 PM

Assuming arbitration is what's happening here, and Rule Zero is brought into play, I don't see why all the players are automatically on the same side.

Meh. I've said if they're somehow split, that's when conversation is better than just shoving arbitration around saying "This side wins the argument" and "This side loses."

I don't really care one wit if that's not your intention, I care even less if you explain that it wasn't your intention, it's exactly what you ended up doing.

dsmiles

2011-04-08, 06:32 PM

Meh. I've said if they're somehow split, that's when conversation is better than just shoving arbitration around saying "This side wins the argument" and "This side loses."

I don't really care one wit if that's not your intention, I care even less if you explain that it wasn't your intention, it's exactly what you ended up doing.So, going solely off of what you've said lately, you'd rather lose an hour or two on a rules discussion than move on and play the game?

If a rules discussion starts to take more than a few minutes, and the DM is doing nothing about it, I'm liable to get up and walk out. I didn't come to talk about the rules, I came to play. If I wanted to talk about the rules, I'd come here to the Playground.

MeeposFire

2011-04-08, 06:38 PM

Meh. I've said if they're somehow split, that's when conversation is better than just shoving arbitration around saying "This side wins the argument" and "This side loses."

I don't really care one wit if that's not your intention, I care even less if you explain that it wasn't your intention, it's exactly what you ended up doing.

Having a group decide can be advantageous but it can also be a major detriment. Groups take longer and can end up casing internal strife of a different sort. Deadlocked groups get ugly fast. Case in point being the states during the time period of the Articles of Confederation. Central government with little power with the states having equal say led to a dysfunctional system. Just because you have a group making decisions does not make it better its more complicated than that. You are making this out to be far too black and white.

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 06:41 PM

So, going solely off of what you've said lately, you'd rather lose an hour or two on a rules discussion than move on and play the game?

If a rules discussion starts to take more than a few minutes, and the DM is doing nothing about it, I'm liable to get up and walk out. I didn't come to talk about the rules, I came to play. If I wanted to talk about the rules, I'd come here to the Playground.

I can't actually imagine any problem that divides the party, as opposed to me as DM vs. the party, that they actually care about, and that they can't quickly resolve and instead argue for hours about. Except maybe in the case of PvP which is the absolute worst time to just say "well, I think this guy should win, and this guy should lose" and raises a series of other problems. Can you provide any examples of such a problem that came up in your games that wouldn't simply prompt me to leave the group?

I'll be honest, I have a great group. The players are quick to come to compromises, because we know that what one player does isn't going to affect the others, and we all help one another with our builds. Except me helping the DM, the players banned me from helping the DM stat up encounters. But it isn't rare to find a group of people who prioritize comprimise and conversation if you foster it, instead of this inane "no discussion, no cooperation, no compromise" attitude that rule-0 ultimately encourages.

dsmiles

2011-04-08, 06:48 PM

I can't actually imagine any problem that divides the party, as opposed to me as DM vs. the party, that they actually care about, and that they can't quickly resolve and instead argue for hours about. Except maybe in the case of PvP which is the absolute worst time to just say "well, I think this guy should win, and this guy should lose" and raises a series of other problems. Can you provide any examples of such a problem that came up in your games that wouldn't simply prompt me to leave the group?

I'll be honest, I have a great group. The players are quick to come to compromises, because we know that what one player does isn't going to affect the others, and we all help one another with our builds. Except me helping the DM, the players banned me from helping the DM stat up encounters. But it isn't rare to find a group of people who prioritize comprimise and conversation if you foster it, instead of this inane "no discussion, no cooperation, no compromise" attitude that rule-0 ultimately encourages.No, I'm not saying that I have any examples. My group never argues about the rules. As a bunch of casual gamers, the rules come in second to the fun. I was just posing a hypothetical situation.

MeeposFire

2011-04-08, 06:52 PM

I have seen groups where the players got into a "discussion" about how something should work. One of those the RAW can be interpreted in several different ways with no clear way of saying who was right. This group either had no DM like person or they were very weak in control as the table went into a full bore discussion of how it should work and nobody was appearing to be taking control of the group. This argument lasted a long time and at the end the group called it quits for the day with several people being hurt I am sure in the process (it looked like it in their faces) since they were deadlocked with an even number of people and they could not come to an agreement. They came back again the next week with no visual problems before or since but I find it hard to believe that having somebody officially in charge (and acting like it) would have made it worse every time.

By the way this is really irritating to others around you when this happens.

Yukitsu

2011-04-08, 06:52 PM

No, I'm not saying that I have any examples. My group never argues about the rules. As a bunch of casual gamers, the rules come in second to the fun. I was just posing a hypothetical situation.

That's the problem though. So many people bring up this hypothetical hours long 2 person one on each side debate issue that they walk right past the sheer improbability of it all, and just assume it's a given to happen with good or even decent players. I don't really think it is. Maybe if they have an off day or something, but I can't imagine it ever coming up in a manner that would make me want to start using rule-0.

dsmiles

2011-04-08, 07:02 PM

That's the problem though. So many people bring up this hypothetical hours long 2 person one on each side debate issue that they walk right past the sheer improbability of it all, and just assume it's a given to happen with good or even decent players. I don't really think it is. Maybe if they have an off day or something, but I can't imagine it ever coming up in a manner that would make me want to start using rule-0.
IMO, if a discussion sidelines the game for more than 5 minutes, it's time for a DM ruling. My gaming time is limited, since I work 50+ hours a week, and have a family to consider. I'd rather spend the gaming time that I do have gaming, not talking about rules.

Serenity

2011-04-08, 07:16 PM

That can be true that interpretation = alteration, but it's not often true. For example, the courts can interpret the law, but they can't alter the law.

Any number of Supreme Court cases would like to have a word with you. When you resolve a rules ambiguity, you're picking one interpretation and usually shutting down the rest. At the risk of starting a political argument, Brown v. Board interpreted the law in a way that overturned school segregation, and Lawrence v. Texas made it unconstitutional to make anti-sodomy laws, overturning existing ones. By the very nature of interpreting the law, judges alter the law.

More relevantly though, this doesn't say why this is either necessary, nor why it would make a better game. That it exists "because the books say it should" doesn't mean that it isn't harmful to the game and to DM perceptions of it. You're practically saying "it exists because it's necessary and it's necessary because it exists."

To make decisions and arbitrate disputes more efficiently and impartially than a majority rules or consensus approach, which risk deadlock, or the loudest person getting their way. For the same reason that sports have referees--you can make a concise appeal of their ruling, but they get the final say.

That's fine, but largely stepping away from the rules.

Did he decide that elves don't exist in his world? Did he decide that certain classes don't exist in his world? Did he decide that certain magic systems don't exist in his world? Did he decide that the world is blocked off from the other planes of existence, rendering planar magic unusable? Or that Create Food and Water doesn't exist because he wants to run a survival oriented campaign and setting? Then he has altered the rules in significant ways, exercising the power granted to him by--you guessed it--Rule Zero.

@Britter: If I remember, the Drama Dice system was pretty similar to how M&M, Buffy, and Serenity gave out Hero Points or equivalent when the DM invoked his Rule Zero powers against the players. I know I may be belaboring the point, since you've already admitted that 7th Sea is fairly similar to the standard model, but that seems to me to be not so much a constraint of Rule Zero as codifying it.

Killer Angel

2011-04-10, 04:55 AM

Did he decide that elves don't exist in his world? Did he decide that certain classes don't exist in his world? Did he decide that certain magic systems don't exist in his world? Did he decide that the world is blocked off from the other planes of existence, rendering planar magic unusable? Or that Create Food and Water doesn't exist because he wants to run a survival oriented campaign and setting? Then he has altered the rules in significant ways, exercising the power granted to him by--you guessed it--Rule Zero.

To be fair, this is more creating a setting and define some house rules before playing, rather then the use of rule 0 during the game.

The Big Dice

2011-04-10, 06:04 AM

To be fair, this is more creating a setting and define some house rules before playing, rather then the use of rule 0 during the game.
It's still an alteration of the rules as printed. Which puts it squarely in Rule 0 territory.And since I don't recall Rule 0 having clauses or exceptions,any alteration of the parameters of the game is a use of it.

Yora

2011-04-10, 07:18 AM

dsmiles

2011-04-10, 07:34 AM

It's still an alteration of the rules as printed. Which puts it squarely in Rule 0 territory.And since I don't recall Rule 0 having clauses or exceptions,any alteration of the parameters of the game is a use of it.The Big Dice presents an interesting point. I've never thought of setting creation as part of rule 0 before. But it is an alteration of the rules.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-10, 10:43 AM

The Big Dice presents an interesting point. I've never thought of setting creation as part of rule 0 before. But it is an alteration of the rules.

Not at all, setting creation and customization are referenced extensively throughout the rules, and the dm is given explicit power over such things..at least in 3.5 and earlier.

Rule 0 can be ignored entirely, and a dm would still have world creation powers.

true_shinken

2011-04-10, 10:49 AM

Not at all, setting creation and customization are referenced extensively throughout the rules, and the dm is given explicit power over such things..at least in 3.5 and earlier.
Rule zero is also referenced extensively throughout the rules and the DM is given explicit power over such things.
Your point?

Killer Angel

2011-04-10, 11:02 AM

It's still an alteration of the rules as printed. Which puts it squarely in Rule 0 territory.And since I don't recall Rule 0 having clauses or exceptions,any alteration of the parameters of the game is a use of it.

Yes, but we were discussing judges that have to resolve a law ambiguity during a trial (DM using rule 0 during play), rather then a single State that add his own laws, to the existing laws of the central government (DM creating house rules before starting the campaign).
I don't think Yukitsu or Tyndmyr, were debating the latter.

huttj509

2011-04-10, 01:11 PM

It's still an alteration of the rules as printed. Which puts it squarely in Rule 0 territory.And since I don't recall Rule 0 having clauses or exceptions,any alteration of the parameters of the game is a use of it.

a) I agree with you.

b) A large part of the problem is that the term "Rule 0" is a development mainly of forums, and does not seem to actually be listed as such in most RPGs. From what I've managed to find, DnD 3.5 never uses the term "Rule 0," despite many folks agreeing that that is a system which definitely has it.

As it is a construct that is not explicitly defined in a published source, there seem to be two main interpretations of the term "Rule 0."

1) The DM(/GM/storyteller/whoever the system put in control) is allowed to alter the printed rules of the game (preferably for the purposes of making the game more enjoyable).

2) Urban Dictionary lists 3 definitions (using urban dictionary to show I am not intentionally exaggerating how some view the term):

1)
The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:
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)

2) This is an unspoken rule in Table top RPGs. It is that the Game Master, or whoever is running the campaign, can simply say no to anything the other players suggest without explanation.

3)
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.

Of the three urban dictionary definitions, I find #3 to be the least antagonistically worded, though it does give what in my view is an unnecessary split between "rule changes decided on before the campaign starts" (house rules), and "rule changes decided on after the campaign has started" (rule 0).

Now, since the term "Rule 0" is not actually defined in a published source (please feel free to correct me if a system explicitly has a rule like rule zero, and specifically lists it, I called for this earlier in the thread and have not seen any referenced), none of these definitions are invalid.

However, from this forum's "common terms" post:

Rule 0: The concept that the DM or GM of a game has final say in rules disputes, and has the authority to change game rules. Sometimes used to defend unfair behavior on the part of a DM. Originally specific to 3e D&D, which explicitly identified this concept by name in the DMG, but has since expanded to be used for any game, though still primarily brought up in discussions of d20 games.

Though, as mentioned, I cannot actually find any explicit mention of the term "Rule 0" in my DnD 3.5 DMG, though it may have been in 3.0 and removed. Note that's the term, I quoted some relevant text regarding the concept in an earlier post.

Frozen_Feet

2011-04-10, 01:23 PM

huttj509, what you say is exactly why I said way back that I think the whole title of this thread is stupid.

All those definitions state that the rule is unspoken or unwritten. This is blatantly not true in many cases. D&D 3.5, for example, explicitly calls out GM as having authority to alter the game to the minutest detail if desired. In many other rule sets, the rule is likewise said outright. Then come the games where it is stated that things aren't so.

So there isn't, in fact, a Rule Zero, because often it's Rule 1, 2, or something else. It's not some outside influence, but an established part of the game.

Talakeal

2011-04-10, 02:43 PM

The Big Dice

2011-04-10, 03:19 PM

The name rule zero is dervied from the "step 0" of character creation in the PHB, where it says to make sure you are aware of any house rules or campaign specfiics before beginning to make your character.

Atleast, back when 3.5 first came out that is what people always said on the official wizard board where I believe the term originated, it may well be older.
I never came across the term until I joined the Playground. Until then, it had always been an assumed factor of an RPG that the GM is the Last Word on everything other than the things that the players do.

I tend to think of it in terms of the uncomfortably named "Zeroth Law of Robotics." As in, it was something fundamental that had not been codified until long after the rest of the rules had been written. Personally, I think the Urban Dictionary definitions are extremely antagonistic, and don't give a balanced look at the subject it's supposedly describing. But then, you can say that for a lot of the stuff on the Urban Dictionary.

Talakeal

2011-04-10, 03:36 PM

dps

2011-04-10, 03:55 PM

You can't play any game by the rules as printed. There will always be cases not covered by the rules, or special cases in which the general rules don't quite fit.
If you want to call it Rule 0 or not, coming up with solutions for such situations is part of every RPG.

This is true of most games, not just RPGs. The difference is that in other types of games, the solution is usually not up to one person.

Talakeal

2011-04-10, 04:01 PM

This is true of most games, not just RPGs. The difference is that in other types of games, the solution is usually not up to one person.

Sure is, I have had questionable things come up in numerous card and board games. The problem is, without a GM or referee of some sort everyone just argues the position that most benefits them at the time and no consensus can be reached, usually with one person leaving the game (or flipping the table) or giving in and sulking the rest of the night.
I have played games with my family and several groups of friends, and don't think I have ever gone an extended period of time without an argument over the rules coming up. I am amazed that so many gamers claim their groups can come to a fair and happy decision in a couple of minutes without GM intervention.

Frozen_Feet

2011-04-10, 04:13 PM

This is true of most games, not just RPGs. The difference is that in other types of games, the solution is usually not up to one person.

Yes. Usually, disputes are solved by flipping a coin, or so forth.

On a second thought, "most games" might be an exaggeration. Many games have fairly simple and self-cointained structure that leaves zero room for arguments once the rules are actually known. For example, tic-tac-toe. Or rock-paper-scissors.

huttj509

2011-04-10, 05:44 PM

I know for a fact I heard people claiming it was based on step zero in chapter one of the PHB on the Wizards board long before I had ever head of the Oots. Whether or not that is the origin I cannot say, but I know that was the first place I heard it sometimes late 03 or early 04.

Aha, indeed, though they are not numbered, in the 3.5 PHB, under character creation (page 6), the first step listed is
Check with your dungeon master

Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group.

Since the next step, Roll ability scores, is covered in chapter 1, I can see where that first step, with the explicit statement that the DM can deviate from the printed rules, could thus be considered number zero.

Thank you, I was wondering about that.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 08:43 AM

Yes. Usually, disputes are solved by flipping a coin, or so forth.

On a second thought, "most games" might be an exaggeration. Many games have fairly simple and self-cointained structure that leaves zero room for arguments once the rules are actually known. For example, tic-tac-toe. Or rock-paper-scissors.

Right. Fairly simple games, where the possible moves can be entirely contained in the rules, have no need for arbitration. Most card games. Checkers. Chess. That said, plenty of people come up with variants on those games.

The actual term "rule zero" isn't something I generally see printed in games with that exact label...but it's not uncommon to see some sort of printed text with a general statement encouraging GM arbitration or what not. The exact format and rules are as variable as the games themselves.

I consider printing such a statement in a book a waste. Of course I can modify games. I don't need a rule telling me I can. If I want to play risk with different rules, I do.

Of course, playing risk with different rules is called "house rules" if sorted out in advance, and "cheating" if I decide to start playing by them midway through. It's a significant delineation that occurs in essentially all games. It's inherently considered more fair. Therefore, if being considered fair matters to you, you should probably endeavor to have your house rules generally known prior to the game.

The Big Dice

2011-04-11, 09:07 AM

Of course, playing risk with different rules is called "house rules" if sorted out in advance, and "cheating" if I decide to start playing by them midway through. It's a significant delineation that occurs in essentially all games. It's inherently considered more fair. Therefore, if being considered fair matters to you, you should probably endeavor to have your house rules generally known prior to the game.
Accusing the Gm of cheating is a very, very serious thing to do. But then, some people game in an atmosphere of mistrust that is thinly veiled as courtesy. And the thing is, 99% of RPGs would state categorically that the GM is incapable of cheating. By making it explicit that the GM is fully within his rights to change things as and when he sees fit, that accusation of cheating becomes irrelevant.

And no, I'm not using that as an excuse for bad GM habits. A bad GM is as a bad GM does. But blame the workman, not the tools he uses. Because it's a cop out to say "Rule 0 is bad because it allows for bad GM decisions" without considering that it is in fact a two sided coin. In fact I'd say that most GMs learn fairly early on (within a few years of taking up the GM aspect of the hobby) that there's a time and a place for everything.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 09:25 AM

Accusing the Gm of cheating is a very, very serious thing to do. But then, some people game in an atmosphere of mistrust that is thinly veiled as courtesy. And the thing is, 99% of RPGs would state categorically that the GM is incapable of cheating. By making it explicit that the GM is fully within his rights to change things as and when he sees fit, that accusation of cheating becomes irrelevant.

The point isn't mistrust and accusations. I don't know why you keep fixating on that.

The point is that gaming at large makes a big distinction between making rulings before the game, and during play.

Because it's a cop out to say "Rule 0 is bad because it allows for bad GM decisions" without considering that it is in fact a two sided coin. In fact I'd say that most GMs learn fairly early on (within a few years of taking up the GM aspect of the hobby) that there's a time and a place for everything.

Er, rules that lead to bad outcomes ARE bad rules. The entire point of rules is to improve the gaming experience. ANY rule that frequently leads to bad outcomes needs to be rewritten, rethought, or otherwise modified/dispensed with.

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 09:58 AM

Is it just me or does anybody else see the irony in rules lawyers arguing against a rule?

Seriously though:
Rule zero is in place because nobody can think of everything ahead of time. There are situations that people will encounter, or things people will want to try that the game designers either didn't think of at the time they were designing the game, or thought would be so remote that the editors didn't feel it deserved a page of rules to define it.

Rule zero also lets you tailor the rules to fit your personal view of how your current game is to be run. Nerfing stuff you feel is overpowered for your campaign, altering spell effects so they make more sense... I was once in a game playing a low level mage...a group of raiders came over the hill and charged. I waited and waited until one was almost on me before casting color spray. The DM asked why I waited so long, to which I replied "well the range on that spell is 0...I had to wait." "Oh..that's stupid", replied the DM "it has a range of X (can't remember) from now on."

Rule Zero lets you modify rules for extraneous situations (shooting an arrow from cover at a target partially concealed by flying debris while in in a hurricane on the heaving deck of a ship in the middle of the night, for example).

Rule zero can also save a party's arse if they are stupid. There is an example listed in another thread... party is tracking down an evil wizard. They burst into the room "guns blazing" to find him having a confab with a red dragon. Had the party scouted they would have known the dragon was there. Does the DM hand wave the dragon away to keep the party from being killed or does he let them suffer and burn? With no Rule 0 they're crispy fritters, to bad so sad. (Now I would let them suffer. If your too stupid to listen at a door before kicking it in, then you deserve what you get).

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 10:17 AM

Yora

2011-04-11, 10:27 AM

Is it just me or does anybody else see the irony in rules lawyers arguing against a rule?
The whole intend of Rule 0 is to prevent discussions like these. :smallbiggrin:

Aux-Ash

2011-04-11, 10:37 AM

Er, rules that lead to bad outcomes ARE bad rules. The entire point of rules is to improve the gaming experience. ANY rule that frequently leads to bad outcomes needs to be rewritten, rethought, or otherwise modified/dispensed with.

Ehm, can't you do this with any rule? Isn't it possible in most games to, completely within the rules, engineer situations that your players have no chance whatsoever of succeeding in? Wether it is to put ludicrously high difficulty on tasks, completely negating their strengths or similar?

If you're really bent on ruining things for your players... then no rule-system in the world can protect them.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 10:41 AM

Ehm, can't you do this with any rule? Isn't it possible in most games to, completely within the rules, engineer situations that your players have no chance whatsoever of succeeding in? Wether it is to put ludicrously high difficulty on tasks, completely negating their strengths or similar?

If you're really bent on ruining things for your players... then no rule-system in the world can protect them.

In some games, yes. But most rule zero misuse I've seen hasn't been intended this way. It's intended to improve the game, but doesn't.

So, in the same way that being able to accidentally break the game with a druid is bad, being able to accidentally ruin the game with rule zero is bad.

I do not claim that rule zero is the only such problematic rule. Mis-CRed monsters, poor class balance, etc...many things could be greatly improved in many games.

Aux-Ash

2011-04-11, 10:51 AM

In some games, yes. But most rule zero misuse I've seen hasn't been intended this way. It's intended to improve the game, but doesn't.

So, in the same way that being able to accidentally break the game with a druid is bad, being able to accidentally ruin the game with rule zero is bad.

I do not claim that rule zero is the only such problematic rule. Mis-CRed monsters, poor class balance, etc...many things could be greatly improved in many games.

I can assure you, you can absolutely ruin the player's game even with fully functional and perfectly formulated rules too. Just put them in situations that rules-wise they're very ill-equipped to handle. It's very bad gm:ing to do so.

Just like it is very bad gm:ing to change something your players like. Rule zero (or whatever it is called) is a powerful tool yes. The most powerful one of all. But it is not supposed to be used at all if your players are having a really good time. It's supposed to be used when they're not. It's intended to make things better.
If things cannot be better or if you don't know what is better... then rule zero (or it's equalients) is being improperly used.

The Big Dice

2011-04-11, 11:08 AM

In some games, yes. But most rule zero misuse I've seen hasn't been intended this way. It's intended to improve the game, but doesn't.

So, in the same way that being able to accidentally break the game with a druid is bad, being able to accidentally ruin the game with rule zero is bad.

I do not claim that rule zero is the only such problematic rule. Mis-CRed monsters, poor class balance, etc...many things could be greatly improved in many games.

Can you say that Rule 0, Druids or other Tier 1 classes in mixed tier gaming groups are absolutely, categorically and undeniably going to ruin the experience of the people involved in said games? If you can't, you are simply expressing an opinion. And that's got nothing to do with whether or not Rule 0 is good or bad.

Because a rule that allows for good things isn't a bad rule. But bad use of it is bad use of a good rule. Like I said, blame the workman, not the tools. A bad GM will use good rules in a bad way. You're still fixated on the No True Scotsman thing. Except you can't say for sure that a good GM won't use Rule 0 to good effect. All you can say is that in your experience you have seen it used badly.

We can (probably) all agree that some parts of some games (D20 Grappling and L5R 3rd edition static bonuses as examples) are things that aren't necessarily good. Either for the game or for the players who have lives away from the gaming books. But you can't say without reservation or exception that Rule 0 is a bad thing. Because it's simply a tool. It is neither good nor bad in and of itself.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 11:53 AM

Can you say that Rule 0, Druids or other Tier 1 classes in mixed tier gaming groups are absolutely, categorically and undeniably going to ruin the experience of the people involved in said games?

No. That isn't the point of this.

The point is that poorly designed rules are more likely to ruin the experience. If you allow a druid and a commoner in the same party, the odds of a power differential hindering the game increases.

I merely hold that rules that are significantly likely to trash campaigns in general are poorly written, and from a game design perspective, they should either be avoided or reworked.

If you can't, you are simply expressing an opinion. And that's got nothing to do with whether or not Rule 0 is good or bad.

Because a rule that allows for good things isn't a bad rule.

Here's where you are wrong. If a rule leads to bad outcomes the vast majority of the time, then it is a bad rule. Consider Truenamer. Is it possible to play a truenamer, be effective, and have fun? Yes.

However, it is a class with a ruleset such that this is fairly unlikely to happen in general. Therefore, those rules are bad relative to more useful classes.

But bad use of it is bad use of a good rule. Like I said, blame the workman, not the tools. A bad GM will use good rules in a bad way. You're still fixated on the No True Scotsman thing. Except you can't say for sure that a good GM won't use Rule 0 to good effect. All you can say is that in your experience you have seen it used badly.

Go read what No True Scotsman is. This isn't it. Then reread my arguments, and address them, instead of the strawman "every use of rule zero is bad". I've never argued that.

We can (probably) all agree that some parts of some games (D20 Grappling and L5R 3rd edition static bonuses as examples) are things that aren't necessarily good. Either for the game or for the players who have lives away from the gaming books. But you can't say without reservation or exception that Rule 0 is a bad thing. Because it's simply a tool. It is neither good nor bad in and of itself.

Tools can certainly be bad, relative to other choices. Absolutely.

Essentially nobody uses hand-cranked tools since the invention of power tools. That's because we've made progress and some tools replace older designs. The same should happen in gaming. The "it's a tool" argument doesn't do anything to prove it's a good choice, or a choice that doesn't need improvement.

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 11:58 AM

Ok...my last two cents on the whole Rule Zero issue.

Just like the Sun is the source of all life on the Earth as we know it, Rule Zero is the source of all life in RPG's. Nothing....absolutely nothing in any RPG would ever exist if some one hadn't Rule Zeroed something unique into their game, played it for a while, tweaked out the obvious flaws and then said "hey..this is pretty fun...lets submit it for publication". No expansions, no updates, no source books with new PrC's. Nothing. Rule Zero is the bread and butter of RPG's. With out it RPG's wouldn't exist.

Saying Rule Zero shouldn't exist because you don't like the potential down side is like saying you think we should turn off the Sun because you don't like the idea of getting sunburned...

If your GM decides that a giant blue rock the size of Rhode Island falls on your party and everybody dies, he's probably just tired of the whiny rules lawyers that whip out the books every time something doesn't go exactly as they think it should. I know I would (and have) :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though... bad rules do not lead to bad decisions. Just like good rules don't lead to good decisions. How many min/maxers have you known in your life...the guys that design characters to get the max hit/damage/what ever and contribute little to the non-combat aspects of the role playing game.. How many people have you known that exploit a perfectly good rule?

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 12:15 PM

If wargaming didn't exist, then roleplaying games as we know them likely wouldn't exist, because they mostly came from wargames.

That doesn't mean modern roleplaying games need to also be wargames.

The Big Dice

2011-04-11, 12:15 PM

No. That isn't the point of this.

The point is that poorly designed rules are more likely to ruin the experience. If you allow a druid and a commoner in the same party, the odds of a power differential hindering the game increases.

I merely hold that rules that are significantly likely to trash campaigns in general are poorly written, and from a game design perspective, they should either be avoided or reworked.
Rules that are well written can do just as much, and sometimes even more, harm to the gaming experience. And until you can give me hard numbers on this opinion, then all it is is an opinion. And also fodder for Rule 0, of course.

Here's where you are wrong. If a rule leads to bad outcomes the vast majority of the time, then it is a bad rule. Consider Truenamer. Is it possible to play a truenamer, be effective, and have fun? Yes.

However, it is a class with a ruleset such that this is fairly unlikely to happen in general. Therefore, those rules are bad relative to more useful classes.
Again, nothing to do with Rule 0. I could care less how effective or not a Truenamer is, that has less than nothing to do with a GM being able to alter the parameters of the game according to personal taste, group consensus, whim or whatever.

The does not mean that Rule 0 leads to a bad outcome the majority of the time, and this is where your No True Scotsman fixation comes into play.

Go read what No True Scotsman is. This isn't it. Then reread my arguments, and address them, instead of the strawman "every use of rule zero is bad". I've never argued that.
Your line of reasoning goes, "A good GM does not need Rule 0." Please explain to me exactly how that is not the same logic as "No true Scotsman would do that." I've posted links to a more detailed discussion of the No True Scotsman Fallacy fallacy earlier in the thread. Better explanations than the rather shallow wikipedia article. Which incidentally still makes the same point that I am making: your argument is exactly the kind of fallacy described as No True Scotsman. Substitute GM for Scotsman and Rule 0 for the offenses the wiki article mentions. It's the same thing.

Tools can certainly be bad, relative to other choices. Absolutely.

Essentially nobody uses hand-cranked tools since the invention of power tools. That's because we've made progress and some tools replace older designs. The same should happen in gaming. The "it's a tool" argument doesn't do anything to prove it's a good choice, or a choice that doesn't need improvement.
Tools are not bad. The use the tool is put to can be good, bad or inappropriate. And people do use hand tools. I know a guy who uses a hand drill and a pedal operated lathe when he's repairing wooden furniture. He also uses powered versions of the same tools, but he says that you can feel what you're doing better and you have finer control over the hand operated tools. The electrical ones are good for shifting bulk, but the hand ones are far better for finishing off pieces.

And all that has less than nothing to do with Rule 0. Simply saying "I've seen it used badly, therefore it is bad" is, as I said earlier, nothing more than an opinion. Which can be easily, and as accurately, countered with "I have seen it used well, therefore it is not a bad thing."

That's why I say it's a tool. The use is up to the GM in question. Your dislike does not invalidate anything or validate anything.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 12:44 PM

Rules that are well written can do just as much, and sometimes even more, harm to the gaming experience. And until you can give me hard numbers on this opinion, then all it is is an opinion. And also fodder for Rule 0, of course.

No, no. The sole purpose of a rule is to improve the game. Rules that generally harm the gaming experience cannot possibly be considered good.

How else would you define if a rule is good or bad?

Again, nothing to do with Rule 0. I could care less how effective or not a Truenamer is, that has less than nothing to do with a GM being able to alter the parameters of the game according to personal taste, group consensus, whim or whatever.

It is an example of a bad rule that demonstrated why your logic was flawed. The rules for Truenamer can be used well...but they are still recognized by many as being bad rules, because they are not particularly easy to use well.

The does not mean that Rule 0 leads to a bad outcome the majority of the time, and this is where your No True Scotsman fixation comes into play.

I've never claimed No True Scottsman. You do. That means you have the fixation, not I. I also invite you to demonstrate how the frequency of good use of rule zero is in any way relevant to No True Scottsman.

In particular, feel free to demonstrate that "None" and "Majority" are the same.

Your line of reasoning goes, "A good GM does not need Rule 0." Please explain to me exactly how that is not the same logic as "No true Scotsman would do that." I've posted links to a more detailed discussion of the No True Scotsman Fallacy fallacy earlier in the thread. Better explanations than the rather shallow wikipedia article. Which incidentally still makes the same point that I am making: your argument is exactly the kind of fallacy described as No True Scotsman. Substitute GM for Scotsman and Rule 0 for the offenses the wiki article mentions. It's the same thing.

I have experiential evidence that you can GM without rule zero. Therefore, I have established that doing so is possible. Positive confirmation is easy. Other people have also established this.

Therefore, rule zero is not necessary. This is a trivial proof.

What you should be trying to prove is not that rule zero is necessary, but that it is desirable. That is a much lower bar of proof. Necessary is negated by a single example.

Tools are not bad. The use the tool is put to can be good, bad or inappropriate. And people do use hand tools. I know a guy who uses a hand drill and a pedal operated lathe when he's repairing wooden furniture. He also uses powered versions of the same tools, but he says that you can feel what you're doing better and you have finer control over the hand operated tools. The electrical ones are good for shifting bulk, but the hand ones are far better for finishing off pieces.

As I said repeatedly, tools are good and bad relative to each other. Yes, any rule, on it's own, has no goodness or badness. But when you are considering a system, then you can determine that a rule is bad for that system.

For instance, you can invent a rule that says "Whenever you take damage, roll a DC100 fort save. If you fail, you gain 100,000 gp."

On it's own, it's just a batch of words, and has no particular meaning. Within the context of D&D, those words DO have meaning. And it's trivial to recognize that such a rule would be hilariously bad.

So yes, rules can definitely be good or bad. If this were not true, nobody would buy rules. We could just invent whatever rules we wanted on the fly, and they would all be just as good.

Aux-Ash

2011-04-11, 01:03 PM

I have experiential evidence that you can GM without rule zero. Therefore, I have established that doing so is possible. Positive confirmation is easy. Other people have also established this.

Therefore, rule zero is not necessary. This is a trivial proof.

I'd just like to single this out here and point out that this is part of how the rule is supposed to be used: Not at all if there is no need to.
If you have a group who really likes the rules and does not want anything to be changed, then the rule is not supposed to be used. It is only ever supposed to be used when a part of the rule gets in the way of the groups enjoyment.

In some groups this is never. In others considerably more often.

It is not a tool for regular use. But a fall back if something is clearly not working for that group.

In a way, the primary point of the rule is to spell out that the rules are not sacrosanct and should be changed, possibly on the spot, if this means the group will have more fun. And that it is the DM's job to make sure this is done (meaning the DM is not supposed to cater to the rules but to the groups enjoyment first and foremost).

Totally Guy

2011-04-11, 01:04 PM

Just for reference, this:

If you are using rule zero, then this is correct.

If you are using a group system where the GM can say "this is the way it is", and be overruled by the rest of the group, then you're clearly not using rule zero.
You're also not playing a traditional RPG. Or rather, a conventional one.

is "No true Scotsman".

I was only looking to show proof of concept. It's there: Any GMless role playing game. But no, "Not a true role playing game".

What I think we have is 2 sides both trying to show "proof of concept" but each person is subconsciously adding "and you're wrong for doing otherwise" to whatever the person of the opposite viewpoint says.

The Big Dice

2011-04-11, 01:57 PM

What I think we have is 2 sides both trying to show "proof of concept" but each person is subconsciously adding "and you're wrong for doing otherwise" to whatever the person of the opposite viewpoint says.
I'd say what you have is one side trying to say that Rule 0 is not needed and you're wrong for saying otherwise, while the other side is saying that Rule 0 is there for you to use or not as you deem necessary.

Also, because of the quote tunnel, I'm not sure which part of your post is relevant to the No True Scotsman line of debate.

Totally Guy

2011-04-11, 02:06 PM

I'd say what you have is one side trying to say that Rule 0 is not needed and you're wrong for saying otherwise, while the other side is saying that Rule 0 is there for you to use or not as you deem necessary.

That matches the expectation I set out.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 02:12 PM

Also, because of the quote tunnel, I'm not sure which part of your post is relevant to the No True Scotsman line of debate.

It's a bit amusing, since you did a textbook demonstration of No True Scotsman.

I've shown that Rule Zero is not needed for all roleplaying games. This is trivial, because not all games have rule zero, or even have a GM. It's also not that important, and there is a huge gap between "not needed" and "doing it wrong".

I do hold that rule zero is a rule used fairly commonly to justify bad decisions and generally poor GMing. It can sometimes even lead a GM astray. Many systems do not support GMing well, and it's usually harder to become a good GM than a good player(more stuff to learn, more prep needed, etc.). Still, in spite of the fact that GMing takes longer to learn than playing....the vast majority of many game systems have far more rules and things to help player than GMs. This seems like a critical design flaw.

Rule Zero is a patch that developers put in. And, like any patch, it's bad if the developers start using it as an excuse to not fix the problem. How many times have you heard that such and such isn't a problem because DMs can just rule zero it away? The fact that the DM has to rule zero it away in the first place shows that it IS a problem, and rule zero is the patch. A vastly more elegant solution is to fix the things that rely on rule zero.

Many systems also put effort into formulating rule zeroish rules into dedicated systems, such as the 7th Sea Drama Die system, which allow the GM some measure of control, while leaving it far less open to abuse, and giving new GMs more guidance as to how to utilize it.

These are improvements. The choices are not merely "use rule zero" and "never use rule zero". There is a world of options in between, and many of them offer marked advantages that a game designer should consider.

Totally Guy

2011-04-11, 02:16 PM

How many times have you heard that such and such isn't a problem because DMs can just rule zero it away?

Oh yeah, I've not seen that one in ages. Is that the Oberoni one? Or is it called it something else?

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 02:28 PM

Oh yeah, I've not seen that one in ages. Is that the Oberoni one? Or is it called it something else?

I think that's Oberoni, yeah. It hits in waves every so often, much like monk threads.

The Big Dice

2011-04-11, 02:34 PM

It's a bit amusing, since you did a textbook demonstration of No True Scotsman.
By saying you're not playing a traditional RPG, or rather not playing a conventional one if you're playing a game where the GM can be over ruled by the players?

That's got nothing to do with No True Scotsman and everything to do with the kind of situation you were describing being out of the realms of mainstream RPG thinking.

I've shown that Rule Zero is not needed for all roleplaying games. This is trivial, because not all games have rule zero, or even have a GM. It's also not that important, and there is a huge gap between "not needed" and "doing it wrong".
All games function because of Rule 0. The perfect RPG, that allows the players total freedom to do as they please and yet still allows the GM to guide the flow of events and not have to make rulings or design decision at any time, simply doesn't exist.

What you have shown is that some people choose not to use something, which isn't the same as showing that something isn't needed.

I do hold that rule zero is a rule used fairly commonly to justify bad decisions and generally poor GMing. It can sometimes even lead a GM astray.
Citation, please. And not anecdotal evidence, either. While anecdotal evidence is better than none, there is an equal amount of it for both camps. So I'm afraid only hard facts will do here. Otherwise, it's nothing more than opinion.

Many systems do not support GMing well, and it's usually harder to become a good GM than a good player(more stuff to learn, more prep needed, etc.). Still, in spite of the fact that GMing takes longer to learn than playing....the vast majority of many game systems have far more rules and things to help player than GMs. This seems like a critical design flaw.
If it's a design flaw, write a better game. Build that proverbial better mousetrap.

Personally, I think game design needs to be supported by well written modules. I learned more about D&D, Cyberpunk and Legend of the Five Rings from modules than I did from rulebooks. Seeing how systems are meant to be used, or how designers think they can be used, is far more educational and inspiring than simply reading a textbook.

Rule Zero is a patch that developers put in. And, like any patch, it's bad if the developers start using it as an excuse to not fix the problem. How many times have you heard that such and such isn't a problem because DMs can just rule zero it away? The fact that the DM has to rule zero it away in the first place shows that it IS a problem, and rule zero is the patch. A vastly more elegant solution is to fix the things that rely on rule zero.
Rule 0 isn't a patch. It's the bit in the White Box that isn't written. The bit that wants you to go beyond the rules and to explore the possibilities on offer. It's the gaps between the lines. My music teacher used to say that music isn't defined by notes. It is defined by the space between the notes. That's what Rule 0 is.

Many systems also put effort into formulating rule zeroish rules into dedicated systems, such as the 7th Sea Drama Die system, which allow the GM some measure of control, while leaving it far less open to abuse, and giving new GMs more guidance as to how to utilize it.

These are improvements. The choices are not merely "use rule zero" and "never use rule zero". There is a world of options in between, and many of them offer marked advantages that a game designer should consider.
Every time the GM makes a ruling on something without looking it up first. Every time the Gm says "No Elves in this setting" Every time the GM says "We won't be having an experience penalty for multiclassing." Every time a GM says "The cloud of flour is going to give everyone a 20% miss chance and you'll be able to see Invisible people because the flour will stick to them." Every time the GM says "Yes, there is a chandelier" even though he hadn't specified that there would be one in his notes. All of those and so many more are all expressions of Rule 0.

Without Rule 0, there is no room for GM flexibility. There's no way for the GM to improvise when the players go off the beaten track because he's not allowed to.

And the real problem is the CCG mentality. The idea that you have to play by the Rules, the Whole Rules and Nothing But the Rules.

Oh yeah, I've not seen that one in ages. Is that the Oberoni one? Or is it called it something else?
That's Oberonni. But in the case of Rule 0, it's only a bad rule because some idiot tried to make it into a rule. Was a time when every gaming book had written in it, front and center, something like: Remember, these rules are just guidelines. Or as I prefer: Remember, what is written is only what is written. It is not what is.

nyarlathotep

2011-04-11, 02:44 PM

Seriously though... bad rules do not lead to bad decisions. Just like good rules don't lead to good decisions. How many min/maxers have you known in your life...the guys that design characters to get the max hit/damage/what ever and contribute little to the non-combat aspects of the role playing game.. How many people have you known that exploit a perfectly good rule?

Min-maxing does not lead to poor roleplaying either.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 02:55 PM

By saying you're not playing a traditional RPG, or rather not playing a conventional one if you're playing a game where the GM can be over ruled by the players?

That's got nothing to do with No True Scotsman and everything to do with the kind of situation you were describing being out of the realms of mainstream RPG thinking.

At this point, I'm getting really tired of talking about No True Scotsman.

I also really don't care if my particular flavor of gaming is describable as "mainstream". I don't see how that makes anything inherently better.

All games function because of Rule 0. The perfect RPG, that allows the players total freedom to do as they please and yet still allows the GM to guide the flow of events and not have to make rulings or design decision at any time, simply doesn't exist.

I wouldn't consider such an RPG to be perfect. Realism is often a constraint on things, so players can never do anything, for instance.

But then, "perfect RPG" is an incredibly subjective thing. I will not presume to define what is the perfect RPG for everyone.

All games do not function because of rule 0. Games that do not have a GM obviously do not have rule 0.

What you have shown is that some people choose not to use something, which isn't the same as showing that something isn't needed.

If you can choose not to use something, and you are successful, then that something is not needed. If you can get by without it, it isn't a need. That's what need means.

Citation, please. And not anecdotal evidence, either. While anecdotal evidence is better than none, there is an equal amount of it for both camps. So I'm afraid only hard facts will do here. Otherwise, it's nothing more than opinion.

Citation, this thread. You JUST said there is an equal amount for both camps. Therefore, approximately 50% of our sample set has experienced quite a significant amount of trouble with Rule Zero. That fulfills my claim of "fairly commonly".

If it's a design flaw, write a better game. Build that proverbial better mousetrap.

I do, to a degree. Many GMs take on some aspects of game writing when they design house rules, do they not? Is not using group rulings instead of DM authority a fairly large change?

Of course, I'm not alone in making modifications to Rule Zero. A great many systems have written their equivalent of it differently, often with limitations. I won't claim that my way is necessarily the best...but as with anything else, a multitude of attempted fixes to something means a commonly perceived problem.

Personally, I think game design needs to be supported by well written modules. I learned more about D&D, Cyberpunk and Legend of the Five Rings from modules than I did from rulebooks. Seeing how systems are meant to be used, or how designers think they can be used, is far more educational and inspiring than simply reading a textbook.

I would agree. Modules are an excellent way of showing how the system is intended to be run. They are a good addition to the rulebooks as GM aides. They can't replace the rulebooks, of course, but using both together can be quite helpful, especially for a new GM. I routinely recommend that new GMs consider using modules as a starting point.

Rule 0 isn't a patch. It's the bit in the White Box that isn't written. The bit that wants you to go beyond the rules and to explore the possibilities on offer. It's the gaps between the lines. My music teacher used to say that music isn't defined by notes. It is defined by the space between the notes. That's what Rule 0 is.

Every time the GM makes a ruling on something without looking it up first. Every time the Gm says "No Elves in this setting" Every time the GM says "We won't be having an experience penalty for multiclassing." Every time a GM says "The cloud of flour is going to give everyone a 20% miss chance and you'll be able to see Invisible people because the flour will stick to them." Every time the GM says "Yes, there is a chandelier" even though he hadn't specified that there would be one in his notes. All of those and so many more are all expressions of Rule 0.

While that's all sorts of poetic, it doesn't address the point of designer laziness. By including a sort of catch-all, they can use it as an excuse for their mistakes.

Without Rule 0, there is no room for GM flexibility. There's no way for the GM to improvise when the players go off the beaten track because he's not allowed to.

And the real problem is the CCG mentality. The idea that you have to play by the Rules, the Whole Rules and Nothing But the Rules.

That's Oberonni. But in the case of Rule 0, it's only a bad rule because some idiot tried to make it into a rule. Was a time when every gaming book had written in it, front and center, something like: Remember, these rules are just guidelines. Or as I prefer: Remember, what is written is only what is written. It is not what is.

That's one perspective. I do not see the idea of sticking to the rules as inherently inferior to not doing so. Some rules are good, some rules are bad. This includes the rule you make up spur of the moment.

As a general principle, rules are enhanced by careful consideration, playtesting, and so forth. These principles tend to demonstrate which rules are bad, and thus should be fixed. Knowledge of which rules in D&D 3.5 are bad is now vastly more complete than when it was first published.

You'll note that rulings during play typically do not have those benefits. Therefore, they are more probable to be a poor decision. These are not the only factors, of course, but as they apply to everyone, they are sufficient reason to avoid relying on in-play rulings as much as possible.

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 03:31 PM

Min-maxing does not lead to poor roleplaying either.

Well it's been my experience that a lot (not all) Mix-maxers focus their efforts on the combat aspect of the game, and don't generally contribute to non combat aspect....I.E. the Role Playing. They tend to let the RRP's talk to the princess or what not, spending their time in town shopping for a better weapon.

The Big Dice

2011-04-11, 03:35 PM

I also really don't care if my particular flavor of gaming is describable as "mainstream". I don't see how that makes anything inherently better.
It doesn't. But the idea that fringe games are better because some of them mess with the traditional Player / GM relationship was floated earlier in the thread.

I wouldn't consider such an RPG to be perfect. Realism is often a constraint on things, so players can never do anything, for instance.
Realism isn't an issue to me. D&D is an incredibly unrealistic game even if you don't factor for magic. And everyone runs at exactly the same speed? Really? That's realistic? And don't get me started on weight lifting events when compared to D&D Strength. It's not a realistic game in the slightest.

And nor are most RPGs. But the good ones tend to have a combination of internal consistency and verisimilitude.

But then, "perfect RPG" is an incredibly subjective thing. I will not presume to define what is the perfect RPG for everyone.
But you will make the claim that an aspect of most games isn't good for anyone.

All games do not function because of rule 0. Games that do not have a GM obviously do not have rule 0.
Fringe and experimental games are all well and good as points of contrast. But held up as "AHA! I'M RIGHT!" they tend to look a bit weak. Interesting as they may be, how many of them are suitable for play over months or years, rather than as short term flings?

If you can choose not to use something, and you are successful, then that something is not needed. If you can get by without it, it isn't a need. That's what need means.
I know for a fact that I don't need a cell phone. I lived for 30 odd years without one. I also know I don't need a TV, a computer or an ipod. I can get by just fine without them.

But can I do better with them? I believe so.

Citation, this thread. You JUST said there is an equal amount for both camps. Therefore, approximately 50% of our sample set has experienced quite a significant amount of trouble with Rule Zero. That fulfills my claim of "fairly commonly".
I said hard, empyrical evidence. Not anecdotal evidence, which is all this thread can provide.

I do, to a degree. Many GMs take on some aspects of game writing when they design house rules, do they not? Is not using group rulings instead of DM authority a fairly large change?
Someone still has to be the chairman. The GM usually has that position, otherwise you just end up with a discussion that doesn't have anything to do with anything. And nothing gets decided unless someone says "That's what we'll do."

If that person isn't the GM, then I'm afraid the lunatics are running the asylum, to use a metaphor. The GM needs to be in control, even if it's only because the players agree to let him be.

Of course, I'm not alone in making modifications to Rule Zero. A great many systems have written their equivalent of it differently, often with limitations. I won't claim that my way is necessarily the best...but as with anything else, a multitude of attempted fixes to something means a commonly perceived problem.
A modification of Rule 0 is a use of Rule 0.

While that's all sorts of poetic, it doesn't address the point of designer laziness. By including a sort of catch-all, they can use it as an excuse for their mistakes.
I don't deny that designer laziness can be a huge issue. I described 4th edition L5R as the Oberonni Fallacy made into a game. Needless to say it wasn't a popular comment, but that doesn't change the way I see it.

However, Rule 0 isn't inherently lazy game design, just as use of it is not inherently going to lead to problems with the game.

That's one perspective. I do not see the idea of sticking to the rules as inherently inferior to not doing so. Some rules are good, some rules are bad. This includes the rule you make up spur of the moment.
Being willing to go beyond the rules is better than being bound by them. D&D doesn't allow me to maim rather than kill, but there are times when that might be the thematic or character based best choice of action.

Why let the rules stop me from creating drama?

As a general principle, rules are enhanced by careful consideration, playtesting, and so forth. These principles tend to demonstrate which rules are bad, and thus should be fixed. Knowledge of which rules in D&D 3.5 are bad is now vastly more complete than when it was first published.
D&D 3.5 is perhaps the most scrutinised game of all time. However, considering that it has been out of print for three years or so and considering that most of the actual testing and proving of ideas that people assume were part of the WotC playtest were actually done over the WotC forums by people who bought the game, you perhaps made a bad choice of example there.

Knowledge of which rules were bad was shared over the internet by ordinary people, not by teams of playtesters making sure that WotC had the information they needed to publish a slick and elegant game.

You'll note that rulings during play typically do not have those benefits. Therefore, they are more probable to be a poor decision. These are not the only factors, of course, but as they apply to everyone, they are sufficient reason to avoid relying on in-play rulings as much as possible.
And if those rulings made in the heat of the moment aren't good, what does it matter as long as the people at the table in question are having fun? I mean, there's no Gaming Police going to bust them and seize their books for doing it wrong. In play rulings are a fact of life. Every GM will at some time have to make them. Sure, experience and familiarity with the system can help inform the rulings. But why handicap a GM by not presenting him with the option to be able to make a ruling?

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 03:37 PM

If you can choose not to use something, and you are successful, then that something is not needed. If you can get by without it, it isn't a need. That's what need means.

Not entirely true. You CAN successfully jump out of an airplane with out a chute at a thousand feet and live. It's happened. That doesn't mean the chute isn't needed.

In essence that's what Rule Zero is... a parachute.

You can fly in a plane a thousand times and not need one but you'll be damned sorry not to have one the one time you do need it. That doesn't mean the plane is a badly designed plane. It means unforeseen circumstances do arise and it's always good to have a plan B

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 03:42 PM

Not entirely true. You CAN successfully jump out of an airplane with out a chute at a thousand feet and live. It's happened. That doesn't mean the chute isn't needed.

This entirely depends on your definition of success. If it is "break every bone in your body", then no, you don't need a parachute to do that.

I don't contest that people can survive falls of ridiculous heights without a parachute, in specific situations. I just don't think this is a particularly apt analogy.

In essence that's what Rule Zero is... a parachute.

You can fly in a plane a thousand times and not need one but you'll be damned sorry not to have one the one time you do need it. That doesn't mean the plane is a badly designed plane. It means unforeseen circumstances do arise and it's always good to have a plan B

I do not pack a parachute when I board a passenger aircraft. Neither does practically anyone else. In fact, I'd wager that bringing a parachute as my carry-on luggage would probably only accomplish some extra special attention from the security folks.

It doesn't. But the idea that fringe games are better because some of them mess with the traditional Player / GM relationship was floated earlier in the thread.

They may be better. That alone is, even if an improvement, insufficient to guarantee the game as a whole is good, of course. Meh. I don't attach value to tradition or novelty for it's own sake.

But you will make the claim that an aspect of most games isn't good for anyone.

I can make the claim that an aspect of gaming is generally undesirable in a given form, yes. I can claim that complex, hard to understand mechanics are undesirable, and almost nobody will argue that point directly...but will instead point out that the tradeoffs of complex rule systems offer other benefits that they consider of greater value. This is often true...but complex, hard to understand rules ARE a general negative, and you need to carefully consider the values you get in return whenever you add them in, and high levels of complexity can certainly be considered a generally negative trait.

I said hard, empyrical evidence. Not anecdotal evidence, which is all this thread can provide.

Look, if you're only going to be satisfied with an exhaustive survey of GMing types by a university or the like, you might as well not bother. Such evidence does not exist, unless you opt to fund it. Is the general opinion of over a thousand posts a perfect scientific representation of the gaming community? No. But it's at least a rough barometer. If roughly half of the people on this forum have experienced a lot of something, it's pretty safe to say it's reasonably common. I'm not trying to extrapolate exact numbers here.

Someone still has to be the chairman. The GM usually has that position, otherwise you just end up with a discussion that doesn't have anything to do with anything. And nothing gets decided unless someone says "That's what we'll do."

Not at all. I've said over and over, that's not how we do things. There is no chairman, no title, no formal authority or all that. We simply talk about it until we arrive at an agreement. Then we are done.

I make no claim that this method works for everyone. But it works for my group, and therefore, it is a possible method.

A modification of Rule 0 is a use of Rule 0.

This is getting to be a needlessly circular argument. If you have defined "not using rule zero" as "rule zero", then you may as well not bother arguing for it. After all, you've already defined everyone in the universe as being on your side, regardless of what they do.

However, Rule 0 isn't inherently lazy game design, just as use of it is not inherently going to lead to problems with the game.

It's an enabler of lazy game design. I'd say almost a necessary one. I'm trying to think of an example of terrible game design that's an exception, by virtue of lacking rule zero in it's text in some form, but it's not coming to me.

Being willing to go beyond the rules is better than being bound by them. D&D doesn't allow me to maim rather than kill, but there are times when that might be the thematic or character based best choice of action.

You don't think D&D has any rules for maiming people? I will agree that it is not a traditional focus, as combat is more likely to end up killing people, but if you prefer to inflict other things on them, there are a multitude of ways to do so.

D&D 3.5 is perhaps the most scrutinised game of all time. However, considering that it has been out of print for three years or so and considering that most of the actual testing and proving of ideas that people assume were part of the WotC playtest were actually done over the WotC forums by people who bought the game, you perhaps made a bad choice of example there.

I'm aware of it's history. That's why it serves as such a good example. The more a game is played, the more it's flaws become known. It's history demonstrates that quite well.

And D&D is hardly among the worst of games at such things. Consider even within 7th Sea. Within the same game system, you have huge differences. Some portions are quite well thought out, and fairly decently tested. Later books, the hybrid ones, can be shown to have a general lack of care, and exhibit a rushed appearance. Consider the massive amount of typos and grammar checks in them. Now, compare the balance levels of those books to the ones that obviously had more time spent crafting them carefully. The rushed books are sufficiently bad that no game I've ever seen run plays with them.

Knowledge of which rules were bad was shared over the internet by ordinary people, not by teams of playtesters making sure that WotC had the information they needed to publish a slick and elegant game.

I am not proposing a class difference between paid playtesters and regular players. No, I am showing the difference between "playtested" and "not playtested".

You can invent a house rule yourself, take some time to consider how it works with everything else, get feedback from knowledgeable types, and run it through playtesting, if you like. This is how good homebrew gets made. If you skip all the steps other than inventing, the quality will be much more likely to be poor.

And if those rulings made in the heat of the moment aren't good, what does it matter as long as the people at the table in question are having fun?

If a ruling isn't good, it isn't good because it will detract from fun. Either now, or at some point in the future.

I do not claim that every rule invented off the top of your head will be bad(and thus, will hinder having fun in the game), but I do claim that rules invented in such a way are more likely to do so than those built in a more considered process.

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 03:51 PM

This entirely depends on your definition of success. If it is "break every bone in your body", then no, you don't need a parachute to do that.

I don't contest that people can survive falls of ridiculous heights without a parachute, in specific situations. I just don't think this is a particularly apt analogy.

Its pretty apt given your general statement of "I did X with out Y there for Y is null."

I do not pack a parachute when I board a passenger aircraft. Neither does practically anyone else. In fact, I'd wager that bringing a parachute as my carry-on luggage would probably only accomplish some extra special attention from the security folks.

Nope you don't. Nor does anybody else...and I'll bet you each and every person that's been in a plane crash would have loved to have one.

Fhaolan

2011-04-11, 03:52 PM

I do not pack a parachute when I board a passenger aircraft. Neither does practically anyone else. In fact, I'd wager that bringing a parachute as my carry-on luggage would probably only accomplish some extra special attention from the security folks.

... I swear I've seen this scene on TV at some point.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 04:09 PM

Its pretty apt given your general statement of "I did X with out Y there for Y is null."

Nope you don't. Nor does anybody else...and I'll bet you each and every person that's been in a plane crash would have loved to have one.

I agree. You don't need a parachute to fly in a plane. In fact, I don't use one myself. I see no problem with this.

The question of it it's a good idea to jump out of a plane without a parachute is entirely different.

Mutazoia

2011-04-11, 04:22 PM

I agree. You don't need a parachute to fly in a plane. In fact, I don't use one myself. I see no problem with this.

The question of it it's a good idea to jump out of a plane without a parachute is entirely different.

And each parachute has a smaller back up parachute. Would you go skydiving with out that back up? Do you drive with out Car Insurance? The world is full of things you can do with out but your damned sorry you didn't have should the need arise.

Rule 0 is like that. 999 times out of an even 1000 you may never need to use Rule 0, but the one time two different source books conflict each other, you will have Rule 0 to fix it on the fly. Or you can stop the game for two hours while you try to figure which one is right. How fun is THAT in a game?

Your entire argument against Rule 0 seems to be that of "I've never needed it, there for nobody else needs it." Which is flawed logic at best.

All old movies are black and white, all Penguins are black and white, therefore all old movies are Penguins.:smallsmile:

nyarlathotep

2011-04-11, 05:54 PM

Well it's been my experience that a lot (not all) Mix-maxers focus their efforts on the combat aspect of the game, and don't generally contribute to non combat aspect....I.E. the Role Playing. They tend to let the RRP's talk to the princess or what not, spending their time in town shopping for a better weapon.

I've found that min/maxers can focus on any aspect of the game be it combat or being really good at climb with their characters stats. This is because they find mechanics fun and interesting.

RPing is done based on how much fun a player has acting out their character and how comfortable they are with acting.

A good min/maxer can also be a good roleplayer or he might not be his rules finesse has nothing to do with his ability to act. In general I try to get players that are good at both for my games. If they are bad at optimizing or roleplaying I do my best to help them, but if they refuse to learn either one I usually ask them to leave.

People who can't roleplay can play RIFTs or hackmaster

People who can't optimize can join freeforms.

In D&D you are expected to do both.

Hecuba

2011-04-11, 06:12 PM

Your entire argument against Rule 0 seems to be that of "I've never needed it, there for nobody else needs it." Which is flawed logic at best.

I think you're overstating that. His argument seems to be two-hinged: that "There are systems that actively run without it, thus it isn't an absolute necessity" and "this is not the only tool that can accomplish the goal."

For your insurance example, it is possible to drive without insurance. To extend this a bit further, the most wide ranging of rule zero versions would equate to an umbrella policy.

You can, for most purposes, do fine with more finely tuned rules to cover specific issues where they are available, just as there are more specific financial insurance tools for people with normal sources of liability. Indeed, if someone has a consistent need for an umbrella policy, you might look at why they have so much liability.

Moreover, I would say the more you move significantly away from the norm of a rule system, the more attractive a rule 0 tool can become. Again, just like the more unusual your sources of liability are, the more attractive an umbrella policy becomes.

I like this analogy. I'm going to keep it.

dsmiles

2011-04-11, 06:28 PM

A good min/maxer can also be a good roleplayer or he might not be his rules finesse has nothing to do with his ability to act. In general I try to get players that are good at both for my games. If they are bad at optimizing or roleplaying I do my best to help them, but if they refuse to learn either one I usually ask them to leave.

People who can't roleplay can play RIFTs or hackmaster

People who can't optimize can join freeforms.

In D&D you are expected to do both.However, it is not required to do either. For instance: My group is low- to mid-optimization characters, with heavy RP and light combat. Optimization isn't required in a group like that, and is indeed frowned upon if you steal the spotlight from the other players.

Fhaolan

2011-04-11, 06:39 PM

People who can't roleplay can play RIFTs or hackmaster

People who can't optimize can join freeforms.

Just to be slightly pendantic on this bit: Just because someone doesn't do something, it doesn't mean they *can't* do something. There are many people who can do a thing, but just don't feel like doing it. I know several gamers who are excellent roleplayers when forced to it, but who don't particularly *like* roleplaying and prefer to focus on the mechanics of the games. I also know several gamers who are exceptionally good at min/maxing, but can't be bothered because it feels too much like work for them.

dsmiles

2011-04-11, 06:43 PM

I also know several gamers who are exceptionally good at min/maxing, but can't be bothered because it feels too much like work for them.You can add another to that list, if you like. Or several more, if you care to meet my gaming group. :smallwink:

nyarlathotep

2011-04-11, 07:20 PM

However, it is not required to do either. For instance: My group is low- to mid-optimization characters, with heavy RP and light combat. Optimization isn't required in a group like that, and is indeed frowned upon if you steal the spotlight from the other players.

Just like my group would frown on someone putting no effort into their character's build and dragging them down in combat. It's the same as getting upset at someone for failing to bother talking during a negotiation scenes or failing to look for clues during investigation scenes.

dsmiles

2011-04-11, 07:30 PM

I was just pointing out that the game's expectations and the DM's expectations do not necessarily coincide. However, I don't doubt that the game designers expected players to memorize every single option and always choose the ("best" is such a horrible word)...shall we say..."most effective" one every time. The better the players know the rules, the "better" they are at the game. Ivory Tower game design, and all that noise. (Which I believe is a horrible premise to build a game on.)

nyarlathotep

2011-04-11, 08:14 PM

It's just like java coding. There is no single best feat but there are several feats that are better than others for realizing certain character concepts and if the rules don't support your concept ask the DM for homebrew rather than using a handicapped option that tries to execute it within the system (like say a soulknife jedi-esque character or playing almost any of the higher ECL mosnters).

Siosilvar

2011-04-11, 09:06 PM

Coming in here with my interpretation of Rule Zero:

It's what you do when the other rules don't work. Whether the GM decides, the players agree, or random chance (or any and all of the above, like a consensus-decided % chance for each option, and then it's the GM's job to enforce that), it's all "rule zero" - improvisation for actions that you don't have another rule for.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that every rule in a game is rule zero-ed in and rule zero-able. The game systems that are out there are just pre-tested sets of rules that somebody came up with via their own "rule zero." They are possible to use without further modification, but most of the time you'll come up with something those rules don't cover. That's where your "rule zero" comes in, to fill in the gaps.

big teej

2011-04-11, 09:42 PM

I haven't monitered this thread as closely as such as a heated debate deserves. and haven't posted since like page 7.
BUT

if I may,

rule zero IS required for the game.

why?

because it is categorically IMPOSSIBLE for game developers to predict EVERY action a player could potentially take. (this obviously excludes games where you are given a list of choices, and MUST take one given)

for example. (and I leave the more system-savvy amongst you to provide a better one)

lets say a party decides to use a Tree Token to force open a door.
to my admittedly limited knowledge, there are no rules ANYWHERE arbitrating such an action (the action being the force generated by a spontaneous 60 foot tree.)

ergo, the DM must make a call on how this works.
I.E.
rule zero.

EDIT:
in hindsight, perhaps not 'required' but at the very least "certainly helpful"

Tyndmyr

2011-04-11, 09:55 PM

I think you're overstating that. His argument seems to be two-hinged: that "There are systems that actively run without it, thus it isn't an absolute necessity" and "this is not the only tool that can accomplish the goal."

For your insurance example, it is possible to drive without insurance. To extend this a bit further, the most wide ranging of rule zero versions would equate to an umbrella policy.

You can, for most purposes, do fine with more finely tuned rules to cover specific issues where they are available, just as there are more specific financial insurance tools for people with normal sources of liability. Indeed, if someone has a consistent need for an umbrella policy, you might look at why they have so much liability.

Moreover, I would say the more you move significantly away from the norm of a rule system, the more attractive a rule 0 tool can become. Again, just like the more unusual your sources of liability are, the more attractive an umbrella policy becomes.

I like this analogy. I'm going to keep it.

You've hit it, and no doubt summarized it more nicely than I could.

If you start spending more and more money on different types of insurance, you might want to take a hard look at why, and what you can do to cut that cost down. Likewise, if you find yourself becoming more and more reliant on rule zero, you might want to look into why, and how you can minimize it.

The Big Dice

2011-04-12, 08:04 AM

You've hit it, and no doubt summarized it more nicely than I could.

If you start spending more and more money on different types of insurance, you might want to take a hard look at why, and what you can do to cut that cost down. Likewise, if you find yourself becoming more and more reliant on rule zero, you might want to look into why, and how you can minimize it.
You're the one talking about becoming reliant on Rule 0. As far as I can remember, all the people advocating the use of it have said more or less the same thing: it's the tool you pull out when all the other tools you have to hand don't work. Like when a player wants to get all Luke Skywalker and rather than kill the BBEG, chop his hand off. Or when the BBEG wants to humilliate a PC, so instead of killing him, he gives him some souvenir facial scarring. Just how do you do those sort of things in D&D?

A question I've had come up in D&D is, can an archer shoot an enemy in the eye, reducing his combat effectiveness? The D&D answer is, no. The Rule 0 answer is, yes. Which is better?

huttj509

2011-04-12, 01:00 PM

Like when a player wants to get all Darth Vader and rather than kill the BBEG, chop his hand off.

Sorry, couldn't stop myself.

/nitpick

The Big Dice

2011-04-12, 01:05 PM

Sorry, couldn't stop myself.

/nitpick

Luke chopped Vader's hand off when he could have killed him instead :smallyuk:

Yora

2011-04-12, 01:15 PM

Luke stopped hacking at Vader after he hacked the hand off. I think he did intend to kill him but stopped there.

Yukitsu

2011-04-12, 01:24 PM

I think Ben was the one who did that sort of thing more often. Seems he did it at least once every movie he was in.

Man this thread can move. I don't even know if I want to go back through all the posts that came since I was here. :smallsigh:

BayardSPSR

2011-04-12, 01:43 PM

This debate seems futile to me - the dispute's coming from style of play, not what's 'right' or 'wrong', and I sincerely doubt arguing is going to change the way anyone plays.

That, and there seem to be two different disputes: rules-heavy vs. rules-light, and group-arbitration vs. GM-arbitration (these are the play styles I refer to).

There's no point in arguing what a 'perfect' system must or must not have when every group - if not every individual - has their own theoretical 'perfect' system. For example, I'm never going to want to play something rules-heavy with an additional volume of houserules when my group could just rule zero (or collectively arbitrate) something not covered, or even do the same for something covered that doesn't work the way we want it to in a given situation (though these events would occur as little as possible). Equally, someone who likes it by the book and wants to prevent any possibility of an arbitrary decision on the part of the GM will prefer that every possibility be covered in the rules, and likely refer to them much more regularly. There's nothing wrong with either side; a good GM will make either situation better and a bad one either worse.

I'm sorry I had to indulge in that rant; I just find it slightly frustrating that people are STILL trying to assign a right and wrong to it. We're not talking Good vs. Evil here; it's a debate between Lawful and Chaotic. No one's going to win the debate; it's a matter of perspective.

Lurkmoar

2011-04-12, 09:36 PM

I'm sorry I had to indulge in that rant; I just find it slightly frustrating that people are STILL trying to assign a right and wrong to it. We're not talking Good vs. Evil here; it's a debate between Lawful and Chaotic. No one's going to win the debate; it's a matter of perspective.

But there will be victory when the other side concedes defeat! /sarcasm

The_JJ

2011-04-12, 10:59 PM

Is this debate still going on around the same question? Because if we haven't derailed then we're on pg. 40.

When the debate reaches pg. 40, I think it's safe to say that no one is going to change their mind.*

Fine.

Hitler was a Rules Lawyer.

According to the laws of the internet the debate is now over.

*Joking aside, I think we can safely say 'just play how you want to ****ing play and let everyone else play how they want to' if not because that might be 'right' (since I've seen people try to contest that...) but simply optimal.

Hecuba

2011-04-12, 11:22 PM

Hitler was a Rules Lawyer.

According to the laws of the internet the debate is now over.

Not if we limit the debate to a topic where Hitler and the Nazis are of direct historical importance to the discussion.

Quickly, someone, how should rule 0 be used in a WWII RPG? Should the storyteller be free to alter the rules to better portray the historical accuracy of the theoretical capacities of a Type XI U-boat?

The_JJ

2011-04-13, 12:22 AM

Not if we limit the debate to a topic where Hitler and the Nazis are of direct historical importance to the discussion.

Quickly, someone, how should rule 0 be used in a WWII RPG? Should the storyteller be free to alter the rules to better portray the historical accuracy of the theoretical capacities of a Type XI U-boat?

Clearly the mere existence of an operational Type XI implies a break from 100% accuracy. In such cases you'd be better off going and buying one of the specifically WWII like simulators, not a real WWII RPG.

Aside; the true WWII RPG:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-672-7634-13%2C_Russland%2C_Luftwaffensoldat_mit_Panzerabweh rwaffe.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-672-7634-13%2C_Russland%2C_Luftwaffensoldat_mit_Panzerabweh rwaffe.jpg

BayardSPSR

2011-04-13, 01:09 AM

Clearly the mere existence of an operational Type XI implies a break from 100% accuracy. In such cases you'd be better off going and buying one of the specifically WWII like simulators, not a real WWII RPG.

Aside; the true WWII RPG:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-672-7634-13%2C_Russland%2C_Luftwaffensoldat_mit_Panzerabweh rwaffe.jpg/300px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-672-7634-13%2C_Russland%2C_Luftwaffensoldat_mit_Panzerabweh rwaffe.jpg

Technically, the term RPG is Russian - it doesn't actually stand for 'rocket-propelled grenade' - so the Panzerfaust is actually just a Panzerfaust, though the RPGs that it inspired are of course highly similar. Contrast with 'assault rifle', which was a term INVENTED BY ADOLF ELIZABETH HITLER HIMSELF to describe the MP44 ('Sturmgewehr'). So yes, Hitler's legacy lives on in the armories of every modern military in the world...

The_JJ

2011-04-13, 02:04 AM

You know, I actually knew that, (about the Panzerfaust I mean. Not the assault rifle. I mean, I'm sure I'd heard it before but not off the top of my head... anyway) but decided that the Panzerfaust was cool enough to post it anyway.

You... umm... you hypersensitive pedantic purist? Trying to get into the spirit of things here though my alternate persona seems to be flip flopping on the issue. Quick, someone call me a hypocrite!

Talakeal

2011-04-13, 09:26 AM

I don't really care how other people play, I just get offended when I hear people say that any RPG that has room for DM interpretation is poorly written. As an RPG author and player I can say that such a statement is easy to say, but impossible to actually implement, it's like saying we don't need police because a decent society doesn't have criminals.

I have spent thousands of hours writing an RPG, thousands more hours play testing it, and it is already nearly 600 pages, and I still haven't come anywhere close to closing every possible rules loophole or every wording that is nor 100% unambiguous, nor have I been able to (or even tried) to write a rule for every specific situation with no discretion on the GM's part.

I firmly believe that such a task would be impossible, and to get anywhere close to it you would need a rulebook that would fill a small library and an enormous team of authors, proofreaders, and play testers spending their entire lifetime working on it.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-13, 09:59 AM

Not at all. Level of detail is relevant.

Look at chess. It, at a very abstract level, is something of a combat simulator. It is not intended to be terribly realistic, nor will it be good if used as such. However, it needs no arbitration for play.

If you want a combat system that handles very detailed levels of information, such as muzzle velocity, breakdown chance by part, and other such minute details as found in some wargaming sim stuff...the quantity of stuff you have to track multiplies quite a lot. The number of required rules is a function of the level of detail.

At the most basic level, a system in which you could do absolutely anything would have as it's rules the laws of physics and such. IE, it would be a simulation of reality. Feel free to theorize what the possible implications of changing them would be.

For all practical purposes, manpower limits you in level of detail chosen unless you fall back on arbitration. The more abstract the system, the less you need to work to reach the goal of no arbitration at all. That said...there's great variability in the amount of arbitration required by systems.

So, you don't need to view it as simply arbitration vs no arbitration....but by the sorts of things you expect the GM to arbitrate, and how much you expect them to do it. The more weight you're putting on the GM, the more I would argue you need to reconsider your design goals. Freeform is, after all, completely arbitration based. It's also a completely free system that requires essentially no learning or investment to use. When people invest in a system, either in money or learning time, it's because they want that system to take some of the load off them. They might prefer setting creation work or rules creation work be done for them...but in the end, they're still paying to reduce the amount they have to do.

Therefore, more complete rules systems requiring less interpretation are better, everything else being equal.

BayardSPSR

2011-04-13, 10:30 AM

[The above long post.]

Have you heard of GNS theory? If this comes out as being mocking, I apologize; the question is not hypothetical and I think the theory could be useful to introduce into this discussion (in my vain hopes of bringing it to some kind of conclusion).

For those who don't know (I have no idea how many or who that might be), the acronym stands for 'gamist, narrativist, simulationist'. The theory (roughly stated) is that there are three facets to an RPG, and three focuses of their players (allowing for mixes in varying proportions). Broadly speaking, a Narrativist plays for the story, a Simulationist plays for the simulation of reality (or prefers realistic systems; that's a better way of putting it), and a Gamist plays for the game-side (as in 'roll dice: overcome challenge: fun').

To relate this to the discussion, the argument against rule zero is a gamist one, and the arguments against it narrativist and simulationist. The perspectives are not incompatible, but I doubt both the wisdom and the utility of placing one style before another.

For example, it is absolutely true that a less arbitrary rule system is a good thing. It is also true that a rule system that allows the maximum creative potential to the players is a good thing, as is one that accurately represents (a) reality.

Given a set of rules that takes up less space than a library, arbitration over ambiguity is inevitably necessary. I think we have agreed on this. After that, it's just a matter of who decides, and as to that, is there a GM that cannot be fast-talked? It all boils down to collective arbitration in the end; the only difference is in who has the final say. If who has the final say becomes a serious issue in either system, the source of the problem tends to be the group not the system. I personally believe both work well; collective decisions because I'm a commie and like equality, and GM decisions because I write and know that they usually know the demands of the plot to come better than the players do.

Whew.

In response to The_JJ, I felt sure you knew (who but one in the know would think to post a Panzerfaust pic?); I merely elaborated for the purposes of further ironic derailment. Since you want it: you're a hypocrite (I guess).

Also, may I sig the "You... umm... you hypersensitive pedantic purist?" part, quoted to you?

stainboy

2011-04-13, 10:30 AM

Quickly, someone, how should rule 0 be used in a WWII RPG? Should the storyteller be free to alter the rules to better portray the historical accuracy of the theoretical capacities of a Type XI U-boat?

Whoa, whoa, we need to figure out some setting stuff before we can talk about the system. Should mecha combat be limited to the Pacific, or did the Nazis also receive rune-powered giant robots from the Pleiadeans?

BayardSPSR

2011-04-13, 10:35 AM

Whoa, whoa, we need to figure out some setting stuff before we can talk about the system. Should mecha combat be limited to the Pacific, or did the Nazis also receive rune-powered giant robots from the Pleiadeans?

Give them the rune-powered giant robots from the Pleiadeans. It's the only way they'll stand a chance against the Soviet Union's bear cavalry.

The_JJ

2011-04-13, 11:05 AM

Also, may I sig the "You... umm... you hypersensitive pedantic purist?" part, quoted to you?

Go right ahead.

Give them the rune-powered giant robots from the Pleiadeans. It's the only way they'll stand a chance against the Soviet Union's bear cavalry.

Ugh. But in order to balance the game they totally made things unrealistic. They about doubled a bear's true carrying capacity so that it could carry the armor it needs to not die from a few good torso hits.

Meanwhile in 1944, in a secret American lab in the Nevada Desert...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRaqxm-VCRww2MiN9VboM8TylvXhqkHKd7aD9AJVE6nVcU7Evkm

They've done it! Now we will truly be unstoppable! See, there was a reason we gave those captured scientists amnesty.

BRC

2011-04-13, 11:43 AM

Heh, I actually had an idea awhile back for a WWII game where each side had some variety of Time power.

The Swiss simply removed themselves from the timestream for the duration of the war.

The British had "Oracles" that could predict the future.

The Germans had "Blitzjaegers" (or something) that used time to speed themselves up.

The Americans Had "Try Again Johnnies" or "TAJ's", who could jump back in time, giving themselves an undo button.

The Russians had soldiers that could create time-clones, jumping a half-second into the future, allowing a single soldier to pull off a human wave.

The Japanese could freeze time's effect on themselves. They could still move normally, but for a short period nothing would effect them (Then, once that period ends, everything that happened to them during that time would happen at once).

The Italians had trains that ran on time, literally.

Also, the Manhattan project resulted in Japan literally being bombed back to the stone age.

Jayabalard

2011-04-13, 12:36 PM

Have you heard of GNS theory?Yes, but a lot of people dismiss it as the bunk that it is. Someone I remember seeing on this thread in particular (Big Dice? I don't remember) generally makes a point of doing so.

The Big Dice

2011-04-13, 12:38 PM

Yes, but a lot of people dismiss it as the bunk that it is. Someone I remember seeing on this thread in particular (Big Dice? I don't remember) generally makes a point of doing so.

That would be me.

Tyndmyr

2011-04-13, 12:53 PM

Have you heard of GNS theory? If this comes out as being mocking, I apologize; the question is not hypothetical and I think the theory could be useful to introduce into this discussion (in my vain hopes of bringing it to some kind of conclusion).

I have...and while I am not adverse to game theory in general, GNS itself is highly problematic.

As it happens, while me and Big Dice routinely disagree on all sorts of DMing advice...when it comes to game theory, I don't think we're that far off. We both have essentially identical views on GNS, for instance, and frequently are in agreement when talking about say, limitations of system design, or advising people to branch out from playing only d20.

For those who don't know (I have no idea how many or who that might be), the acronym stands for 'gamist, narrativist, simulationist'. The theory (roughly stated) is that there are three facets to an RPG, and three focuses of their players (allowing for mixes in varying proportions). Broadly speaking, a Narrativist plays for the story, a Simulationist plays for the simulation of reality (or prefers realistic systems; that's a better way of putting it), and a Gamist plays for the game-side (as in 'roll dice: overcome challenge: fun').

Here's the flaw...it's a categorization schema. Sure, I could categorize games as "D&D" and "not D&D", and I would have a valid categorization schema. However, it would be useful for nothing more than having arguments over which categories games should go into, and labeling things. It wouldn't actually lend any deeper insight into game design.

Sadly, the GNS criteria does not even fully categorize games and gamers. Consider the social aspect. I know many people whose primary criteria for a game is "what are my friends playing". Their main goal is socializing, with the game merely providing an activity for that. Social play is a HUGE part of RPGs, and ignoring as a goal that leaves a gaping hole in the theory.

I'm not even gonna get into redefining terms.

To relate this to the discussion, the argument against rule zero is a gamist one, and the arguments against it narrativist and simulationist. The perspectives are not incompatible, but I doubt both the wisdom and the utility of placing one style before another.

I doubt this heavily. For instance, my favorite published system is 7th Sea. I've held up it's drama die system as a desirable alternative to an unrestricted rule zero.

Yet...if I had to classify it using GNS, it would undoubtedly fall square into the narrativist camp. This is not a game that ever bothered to say, limit how far a player can run in a round. It does not care about simulating things accurately, but it's very, very setting focused, and drama/style are major goals.

For example, it is absolutely true that a less arbitrary rule system is a good thing. It is also true that a rule system that allows the maximum creative potential to the players is a good thing, as is one that accurately represents (a) reality.

Well, assuming for the sake of pedantry we use reality to mean "reality in the game world", then sure. I will accept that volume of rules is a tradeoff in many situations.

Given a set of rules that takes up less space than a library, arbitration over ambiguity is inevitably necessary. I think we have agreed on this.

Well, hold on. We've established that there are ways of making rules for the arbitration itself. Often, very generic rules that apply to essentially any situation. This, in itself, is an example of level of detail being used to limit rules.

(stuff about using either one) Whew.

I wouldn't consider them both equal for all situations. I'll accept that a more authoritarian style is required for say, dealing with young children as a previous poster used as an example.

Likewise, the communal style requires that the players not be interested in say, trolling the group by arguing endlessly. If you have that, you can't use communal decisions. However....it strikes me that such players are better removed anyway.

In response to The_JJ, I felt sure you knew (who but one in the know would think to post a Panzerfaust pic?); I merely elaborated for the purposes of further ironic derailment. Since you want it: you're a hypocrite (I guess).

Also, may I sig the "You... umm... you hypersensitive pedantic purist?" part, quoted to you?

Personally, I thought the derailment was hilarious. Kudos to all.

Also, a mecha-nazi game would be fantastic. I'm picturing Dust, in RPG form.