PDA

View Full Version : There is no "Rule Zero"!



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Firechanter
2011-03-20, 08:09 PM
I keep reading references to "rule zero", in the sense of "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for now. Have fun. ^^

Kurald Galain
2011-03-20, 08:13 PM
You should try playing Paranoia. That is all.

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 08:16 PM
You should try playing Paranoia. That is all.Hehehehee. :smallbiggrin:
According to his reasoning, they couldn't. Friend computer would seem like a douchebag to them, instead of the loving companion and mentor that it really is. :smalltongue:

BRC
2011-03-20, 08:18 PM
I say there is a Rule Zero. A GM can, at any point, do anything within the game.

It dosn't mean they were right to do it. It dosn't mean they should have done it, or that the Players need to just sit there and accept it without complaining, but they CAN do it.

Also, failure to obey rule Zero is Treason, punishable by summary termination. Knowledge of rule zero is Treason, punishable by summary termination. Happiness is Mandatory, have a nice daycycle.

DeltaEmil
2011-03-20, 08:25 PM
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.

Morph Bark
2011-03-20, 08:26 PM
In Exalted, DnD's Rule Zero is Rule Two.

Yukitsu
2011-03-20, 08:28 PM
Rule 0 either means the game designers need to know their game better, or that the DM needs to know the rules of the game better.

Doc Roc
2011-03-20, 08:31 PM
I keep reading references to "rule zero", in the sense of "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

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

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

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

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

Welcome aboard the brave ship GamesBetterNotSuck. You'll find a priority pass to the dining hall in your luggage, as well as a sufficiently high clearance to get you anywhere but the bridge. We hope you enjoy your flight! More seriously, it's always seemed to me like Rule Zero was an excuse for very poorly written systems, more than anything else. And what it really meant was You Will Have To Write Your Own Game By Inches.



In Exalted, DnD's Rule Zero is Rule Two.
Rule 0 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect balance.
Rule 1 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect hope.

Zaydos
2011-03-20, 08:34 PM
Your invisibility's duration is up, you start to become translucent and indistinct Giving a player some warning/a round of freebie at the end of invisibility so that they can RP it and/or not get killed. Rule 0.

You can't shoot a bow from cover without suffering a -10 Not letting archers work because you wanted them to melee the encounter. Rule 0.

Rule 0 is a tool. Use it well and it makes the game more enjoyable. Use it badly and it makes the players talk about how bad of a DM you were and how they don't want to play with you again. The thing is, ultimately you are referee and judge, you are the arbiter of rules and the creator of rules. Rule 0 is the same rule that allows homebrew.

Then again I'll admit there's really a rule more important than Rule 0. Don't be douchebags.

Doc Roc
2011-03-20, 08:35 PM
Your invisibility's duration is up, you start to become translucent and indistinct Giving a player some warning/a round of freebie at the end of invisibility so that they can RP it and/or not get killed. Rule 0.

You can't shoot a bow from cover without suffering a -10 Not letting archers work because you wanted them to melee the encounter. Rule 0.


The second one sounds completely awful, and a perfect example of what's wrong with this mindset.

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 08:38 PM
Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Rule 0 is an integral part of any RPG. Say, for instance, that a player wants his character to swing on a chandelier, leap off at the apex of its swing, and vault onto the giant's head, pointy object first. (Why there's a giant in a room with a chandelier, I'll never know, but it's as good an example as any.)

Find me a system that has a written rule for this specific action.

Rule 0 isn't just about the DM/GM/ST/Whatever. It's about the players' epicness as well.

Morph Bark
2011-03-20, 08:38 PM
Rule 0 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect balance.
Rule 1 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect hope.

Rule -1 is: Thine expectations shalt be shattered by playing Exalted. :smallwink:

Zaydos
2011-03-20, 08:40 PM
The second one sounds completely awful, and a perfect example of what's wrong with this mindset.

I agree wholeheartedly, my point was it's a double edged sword. The kind of GM that's going to do that is going to do it regardless, though.

BRC
2011-03-20, 08:48 PM
The second one sounds completely awful, and a perfect example of what's wrong with this mindset.
Let me define how I see Rule 0.

Rule 0 is not an Excuse, it's not a Mindset, it's not a shield, it's a tool.
I CAN walk up to a random person in the street and smack them with a baseball bat. It dosn't mean I should, or that I won't suffer consequences, but I can. I can use Rule 0 to kill my party, dosn't mean I should.
If a designer releases a flawed game, and says "Oh, well, GM's will just fix it with Rule 0", they are a bad designer.

If a DM arbitrarily declares that the Archer takes a -10 penalty for trying to use cover, then they are a bad DM. It is as simple as that.

nyarlathotep
2011-03-20, 08:52 PM
I would agree with the original poster with one caveat, rule zero and house rules are not the same thing. As long as you lay out your alterations to the system from the very beginning and both the players and the NPCs follow them than altering the system is fine, as long as it is done because you think it will lead to more fun (the real kind not the dwarf fort kind, unless you're running a df game but that's a different issue).

Falling back on rule zero in the middle of a game is a sign that the GM has screwed up and is trying to fix something by invalidating the PCs ideas or successes. This is bad GMing and bad story telling. If you screw up and the PCs have you beat you should find a way to let the story evolve organically rather than saying "the players rules are not my rules".


Rule -1 is: Thine expectations shalt be shattered by playing Exalted. :smallwink:

Rule -3 thou shall make condescending remarks about how much better Exalted is than D&D
Rule -2 thou shalt play Nobilis instead of this game.

Doc Roc
2011-03-20, 08:54 PM
Let me define how I see Rule 0.

Rule 0 is not an Excuse, it's not a Mindset, it's not a shield, it's a tool.
I CAN walk up to a random person in the street and smack them with a baseball bat. It dosn't mean I should, or that I won't suffer consequences, but I can. I can use Rule 0 to kill my party, dosn't mean I should.
If a designer releases a flawed game, and says "Oh, well, GM's will just fix it with Rule 0", they are a bad designer.

If a DM arbitrarily declares that the Archer takes a -10 penalty for trying to use cover, then they are a bad DM. It is as simple as that.

The thing is, if it is a tool, it is not a rule. It's a systems management mechanism, and should have rules and guidelines, instead of being a pithy thing for pithing yourself.

FelixG
2011-03-20, 08:55 PM
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 is... completely wrong...

In one of my favorite games I play in using "Rule 0" is generally grounds to be put on a DM suspension and review.

To each their own, but a Gm needent use Rule 0 to make a game enjoyable at all.

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 08:56 PM
Falling back on rule zero in the middle of a game is a sign that the GM has screwed up and is trying to fix something by invalidating the PCs ideas or successes. This is bad GMing and bad story telling. If you screw up and the PCs have you beat you should find a way to let the story evolve organically rather than saying "the players rules are not my rules".Again, Rule 0 is not solely about the GM/DM/ST/WE. If a player wants to do something totally awesome that's not covered by the rules how do you handle it? Tell them they can't do it because it's not in the rules? That's crappy DMing right there. Rule 0 goes both ways.

Britter
2011-03-20, 08:57 PM
Not a fan of Rule Zero. And I know of plenty of systems that don't have a Rule Zero. I agree with the assertion that Rule Zero is a stop-gap measure instituted to shore up weak game design.

Now, on the other side of the argument, a good GM can make it work. But in a system that is more tightly engineered and explains the method for interpreting and executing player actions, even a less-skilled GM can provide consistent, clear rulings.

As I seem to be saying a lot of late (in regard to the base-line assumptions of DnD not extending across the entirety of the gaming hobby), Rule Zero is an element of a particular school of game design, and that school makes several assumptions about how games are played (as all systems do, of course). Because there are many other systems that do not operate under those assumptions, the idea that Rule Zero is applicable across the board is simply not correct.

nyarlathotep
2011-03-20, 08:59 PM
Again, Rule 0 is not solely about the GM/DM/ST/WE. If a player wants to do something totally awesome that's not covered by the rules how do you handle it? Tell them they can't do it because it's not in the rules? That's crappy DMing right there. Rule 0 goes both ways.

You do bring up a good point, but there is a difference between making ad hoc rules for something that the system does not cover and changing how existing rules function. I guess it would be better to say don't use rule 0 as a crutch to cover your own mistakes.

dsmiles
2011-03-20, 09:01 PM
Not a fan of Rule Zero. And I know of plenty of systems that don't have a Rule Zero. I agree with the assertion that Rule Zero is a stop-gap measure instituted to shore up weak game design.

Now, on the other side of the argument, a good GM can make it work. But in a system that is more tightly engineered and explains the method for interpreting and executing player actions, even a less-skilled GM can provide consistent, clear rulings.

As I seem to be saying a lot of late (in regard to the base-line assumptions of DnD not extending across the entirety of the gaming hobby), Rule Zero is an element of a particular school of game design, and that school makes several assumptions about how games are played (as all systems do, of course). Because there are many other systems that do not operate under those assumptions, the idea that Rule Zero is applicable across the board is simply not correct.
Those would be some awfully thick rulebooks, in order to cover every imaginable action the characters could take. I'd hate to have to read 'em.

Sure, some systems may not need a "Rule 0," but there are systems that do need it, and there are people who enjoy those systems regardless of their shortcomings.

Britter
2011-03-20, 09:09 PM
Those would be some awfully thick rulebooks, in order to cover every imaginable action the characters could take. I'd hate to have to read 'em.

Sure, some systems may not need a "Rule 0," but there are systems that do need it, and there are people who enjoy those systems regardless of their shortcomings.

Again, respectfully, you are assuming all games are operating on the assumptions of DnD and similar games. You don't need rules for everything to invalidate the need for a Rule Zero. The games I play these days have rulebooks much smaller then the PHB/DMG combo of any edition of DnD.

And I am all for people having fun, regardless of system. So I am not going to tell you or anyone else that they are having badwrongfun at their gaming table, regardless of system used.

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-20, 09:18 PM
I've found Rule 0 can be very useful for special situations where the rules are not specific, simple because they were too pedantic to be written that way.

I'm running an encounter at the moment involving portals, portals that take people to different locations depending on a random diceroll. Sounds simple, right?

Wrong.

This portal is in a doorway and people want to know what it looked like. I made is black and opaque to preserve the mystery.

The adventure doesn't cover how often the portal changes, whether it is on a person or time, or if someone can stick their head in and see. So I made it in rounds, if two players enter one right after the other they go to the same place. Also, if a player sticks something in or part of themselves in, it or them gets sucked through. The former was a mechanics thing so I could work out if players could go to the same place, the latter is so players don't get half-arsed about going through. I just have to make sure I am consistant with the rules and it's a very valid implentation of Rule 0.

You can't think of everything at the time, you better have a good answer for that loophole the players questioned.

As for Paranioa, I make it clear to the players that I am god and they dare not question me.

Britter
2011-03-20, 09:19 PM
Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Rule 0 is an integral part of any RPG. Say, for instance, that a player wants his character to swing on a chandelier, leap off at the apex of its swing, and vault onto the giant's head, pointy object first. (Why there's a giant in a room with a chandelier, I'll never know, but it's as good an example as any.)

Find me a system that has a written rule for this specific action.

Rule 0 isn't just about the DM/GM/ST/Whatever. It's about the players' epicness as well.

Apologies for the double post. This is a good example of what I am talking about with poor design leading to the need for Rule Zero.

The poster is operating under the assumption that there needs to be a specific rule to do the above action, or that the above action must be adjudicated by Rule Zero.

There is, in fact, a spectrum of options between those two points.

For example, in my Burning Wheel game, I would make this a linked test between a characters Speed stat, and Weapon skill. Per the rules of Burning Wheel, I would assign the difficulty based on the example Obstacles in the book, let the player know what needs to be rolled for success, and let the dice hit the table.

Burning Wheel doesn't try to cover all possible actions that can be taken. Instead of listing explicit actions, it provides the GM and the PCs a framework for building tests in a consistent manner. There are some specific rules in the game, like Intent and Task, and Say Yes or Roll the Dice, that allow the system to either bypass unnecessary rolls entirely or adjudicate otherwise unusual situations based on what the player is trying to accomplish and what stat or skill they are trying to use.

There are many other systems with other response to the situation, covering a very wide spectrum.

I reject the idea that a players actions must fall into a specific rules heading. I also reject the idea of Rule Zero. There are a number of different middle-grounds that fall between the two.

Edit: Also, I have no issues at all with games like Paranoia. There is a specific design element there that works wonderfully for what it is intended to do.

Doc Roc
2011-03-20, 09:22 PM
I've found Rule 0 can be very useful for special situations where the rules are not specific, simple because they were too pedantic to be written that way.

I'm running an encounter at the moment involving portals, portals that take people to different locations depending on a random diceroll. Sounds simple, right?

Wrong.

This portal is in a doorway and people want to know what it looked like. I made is black and opaque to preserve the mystery.

The adventure doesn't cover how often the portal changes, whether it is on a person or time, or if someone can stick their head in and see. So I made it in rounds, if two players enter one right after the other they go to the same place. Also, if a player sticks something in or part of themselves in, it or them gets sucked through. The former was a mechanics thing so I could work out if players could go to the same place, the latter is so players don't get half-arsed about going through. I just have to make sure I am consistant with the rules and it's a very valid implentation of Rule 0.

You can't think of everything at the time, you better have a good answer for that loophole the players questioned.

As for Paranioa, I make it clear to the players that I am god and they dare not question me.

So, you'd punish me brutally for sending my familiar through to check out a portal?

LOTRfan
2011-03-20, 09:24 PM
So, you'd punish me brutally for sending my familiar through to check out a portal?

Well, what sort of animal abuse is that, sending familiars as scouts? :smalltongue:

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-20, 09:28 PM
So, you'd punish me brutally for sending my familiar through to check out a portal?

That actually happened! The wizard sent his familar through and he didn't come back without being summoned. Then, when he came back it was clear he had been attacked. :smallbiggrin:

BRC
2011-03-20, 09:28 PM
The thing is, if it is a tool, it is not a rule. It's a systems management mechanism, and should have rules and guidelines, instead of being a pithy thing for pithing yourself.

First of all, Rules are Tools. They are Tools for playing the game and telling the story. BaB is a Tool for making Fighters better at hitting things with heavy objects than Wizards. HP is a Tool for keeping track of how much damage you can take.
Alright, here are some Rules and Guidelines for Rule 0:

Rules
The GM may overrule the rules of the system, or invent their own rules to address situations not addressed by the system.
Guidelines
The GM should only invoke Rule 0 in the interest of making the game a more enjoyable experience for all involved.
__________________________________________________ ________________
Rule 0 is not an excuse for designing a bad game any more than saying "A good mechanic can fix it" is an excuse for building a bad car or saying "If they get to a Doctor they'll be fine" is an excuse for stabbing somebody.

Lets say there is a flaw in the system, let's say I'm playing Dnd 3.5 and I come up with some simplified grapple rules that I use. Rule 0 says I can override the rules written in the book to use my own.

Now, here's the thing, Rule 0 is NOT the problem. Rule 0 is my personal solution to the problem, the problem is bad game design.

If I ever meet a designer who intentionally leaves flaws in their game, saying that "GM's can fix that with Rule 0", I will smack them in the face with a bag of D4's. Removing Rule 0 does not help these cases.

Here, let's add another Guideline.
A Designer should not assume that Rule 0 will be used in their games.


Or here's something else, what if there is a well designed system I want to modify. What if I think the system is fun, it's just got a little too much bookkeeping for my group, so I use Rule 0 to ignore some things we're supposed to keep track of and make the game easier to run.

Rule 0 is a Treatment (Not a Cure, a Treatment) for Bad Game Design, not the cause of it.

erikun
2011-03-20, 09:29 PM
Well, I have several points against the idea of no "Rule Zero". The first is that rule 0 is scorned for allowing the DM to 'cheat', yet great concession is given to the DM who can come up with an alternate reason for something happening or not happening. The Big Bad being invincible while monologuing is rule 0 and bad, but the Big Bad being invincible for a short time due to a super secret potion that only he knows and monologuing due to his arrogance is 'creating a new power' and fully within DM rights. Not getting to roll to spot the trap is rule 0, but the trap being so small that it warrants a +20 DC (and thus, any retroactive roll would fail) is being flexible. -10 to hit with archery is bad DMing, but -10 to hit with archery due to some foliage in the way is good DMing. It seems to me that the problem isn't DM cheating, but DMs coming up with creative excuses.

As for castrating the player, what is the difference between saying that scrying does not work due to rule 0, and saying that it doesn't work due to some creative excuse? This could be anything, from a curse blocking divination to magical protection to divine intervention to having a metal plate in the character's head. Again, the situations are identical (especially as the DM wouldn't be telling the players why the scrying failed in this case) but rule 0 is "cheating" while DM flexibility is "creative".


And there are genuinely valid reasons for rule 0. What if a player forgot that dwarves get a bonus with Stonecunning, which would have detected the unstable wall that just buried half the party? What if the DM forgot the Paladin's new Boots of Elvenkind, which would have allowed them to pass the guard post silently? What if someone just read a rule wrong or wrote something incorrectly on their character sheet? Is everyone just supposed to say "Oops, sorry. We'll remember next time."? Remembering all the rules takes time, and nobody does it correctly - the idea behind a "Rule Zero" is to allow the DM to correct faulty or silly situations that would otherwise block the game. Or should everyone play in a world with Pun-Pun and Drown Healing, because the (very silly) combination or rules allow it?



If on the other hand you are concerned that something a player does is "overpowered", it is still bad style to just forbid it. Instead of confrontation, try to build a consensus. Either let yourself be convinced that the thing is not breaking the game, or convince the player that it is. (Hint: the statement "anything you use, the NPCs may use, too" usually works wonders.)
The most common problems with "overpowered" options is not DM challanges but how the party handles them. It is a trivial matter to just throw higher and higher CR monsters until the proper challange balance is achieved. It is far harder for a Samurai/Monk multiclass character to stand up to these increased challanges next to Bear-rider BearDruidZilla and his friend, KnowAllSpells Erudite.

What's more, new players (yes, there are new players!) have an even tougher time trying to figure out complex issues like intra-party balance when they aren't even familiar with their own class. The DM's ability to ban, say, confusing or extraneous options definitely help them in making a decision, and with not being overshadowed in their first game.

Stating that you can use a Tainted Scholar/Ur-Priest/Dweomerkeeper as well doesn't help these problems one bit. In fact, there are likely very few games where free Wishes are not a major problem.

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-20, 09:30 PM
What's more, new players (yes, there are new players!) have an even tougher time trying to figure out complex issues like intra-party balance when they aren't even familiar with their own class. The DM's ability to ban, say, confusing or extraneous options definitely help them in making a decision, and with not being overshadowed in their first game.

Stating that you can use a Tainted Scholar/Ur-Priest/Dweomerkeeper as well doesn't help these problems one bit. In fact, there are likely very few games where free Wishes are not a major problem.

I do this with 4E and D&D, there are some classes that new players are not allowed to play. And you don't make your first character, but these are more house rules than Rule 0. Rule 0 is tool.

Temotei
2011-03-20, 09:38 PM
The rule zero I use is the one that makes players have more fun, not make "my plot" work. I consider the plot mine as well as my players', though, so trying to "save" it to preserve its original image in my mind would be ending the spirit of my DMing.

Besides, allowing the monk to jump off of a building into a pool of water and actually start running on it instead of needing to swim is something I like to see every once in a while. :smalltongue:

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-20, 09:39 PM
Rule 0 also means a natural 20 on Thievery can remove someone's pants while they are wearing them. :smallbiggrin:

nyarlathotep
2011-03-20, 09:41 PM
Rule 0 also means a natural 20 on Thievery can remove someone's pants while they are wearing them. :smallbiggrin:

Without rule 0 a natural 1 can as well.:smallbiggrin:

Katana_Geldar
2011-03-20, 09:43 PM
No, natural 1 means you've forgotten to wear your belt that morning.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-20, 11:49 PM
There needs to be a Rule 0.
Existing rules can be interpreted in multiple, valid, ways and no game has existing rules for every conceivable action. Yes, it can be used for evil, but if you are a power hungry little dictator, literally exhaustive rules are not going to stop you. Sometimes you just need a judgement, any judgement. So rather then arguing for hours that could be better spent playing, you have someone who can say "Look, this is how it is going to work. If you have a real problem with it, come to me after and we can discuss it them, but we came here to play." As of late, the idea of more player involvement in the world has become part of many role playing games, and it has produced some excellent results by creating more engagement by the players in the world they are all creating together. But in the end, you need someone to make a quick judgement and cut the Gordian knot of natter.

Thiyr
2011-03-21, 12:17 AM
I do this with 4E and D&D, there are some classes that new players are not allowed to play. And you don't make your first character, but these are more house rules than Rule 0. Rule 0 is tool.

Personally, I just consider house rules to -be- an expression of rule 0. When the GM says "In this game, I'm saying diplomacy works like this instead of that", he's houseruling via rule 0. The only real exception is using variant rules from a published source.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 12:22 AM
Stuff like this had been coming up recently...

Rule -Infinity of any RPG:
If you're having fun, you're doing it right. If not, then not.

Rule -Infinity< Rule number< any other rule number (I really ought to model that in limits but whatever.)

This is going to mean different things for different people. Deal with it.

Your GM is not a bad GM, he's just bad for you. Deal with it, don't come bitching to strangers on the internet so they can edify your (totally unbiased and neutral, I'm sure) viewpoint of events. Don't ask the Playground to confirm how terrible your DM is. Ask for solutions. We're generally good at that.

So can we please stick to fact and opinions. "X is the best and only way to play" is not a fact. It is in fact provably false.

"I prefer to play like x because y and z," is, in fact, a fact. (Unless you're lying on the internet for some reason...)

Anywhooo... I prefer games where the GM could not be replaced by a random encounter chart, automatic dice roller, and stack of rulebooks, because if you're running RAW that's really the only point to him. RAW is dumb as hell and carried to its logical extremes (Tippyverse is tip of the iceburg) highly illogical. No book or system is going to be able to cover every eventuality, no book or system is going to be able to iron out all the stupid.

Remember folks, seeing the Moon is an application of Rule 0!

Zeful
2011-03-21, 12:50 AM
In the gaming circles I usually frequent, this school of thought is widely scorned.
The DM is bound by the same rules as the players.
No he's not, and both the PhB and the DMG make this clear as soon as possible.

This whole "Rule Zero" crap is _so_ "20th century" and should be purged from all game books.Except doing so for D&D makes the game more bland and formulaic than it currently is.


The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else. If he is allowed to cheat, so is everyone else. Since that would destroy the game, the only possible consequence is: the GM must not cheat.The DM/GM/Storyteller is not a player and has to invest exponentially more effort than each of his players combined. Secondly you seem to be treating Rule zero as nothing but cheating when it's use is much more expansive than that.

The GM has a lot of flexibility without cheating or bending the rules. If he wants the BBEG to have some power that's not in the books, he can create it. D&D of all games has probably the least call for this, because there are thousands of everything: PrCs, feats, spells. But that only aside.And most of them are worthless. Against even a moderately optimized group of players more than 75% of everything in D&D will fail to be a believable threat to the players. Against a highly optimized group of players nearly 90% of all printed material for 3.5 is useless.


Above all, the GM must not castrate a player character by denying him the benefit of a feature the player "paid" for, just because it would ruin his precious plot. If there's nothing in the rules that can stop the player from busting your plot -- well then build a better one for crying out loud!Character is built through suffering. Suffering is earned. If a player does something and the immediate result is losing a feature they've "paid for". Tough. They get to deal with the consequences of their actions just as if the DM failed to properly shield the plot of his adventure. Which you are aware is pretty much impossible to do? Contact Other Plane is enough to get intell on pretty much any plot and the answers can be mathematically assured of their accuracy.

Without rule zero, no plot can actually be secured without the plot being "everyone you could contact through Contact Other Plane is dead, your job is to find out why".


If on the other hand you are concerned that something a player does is "overpowered", it is still bad style to just forbid it. Instead of confrontation, try to build a consensus. Either let yourself be convinced that the thing is not breaking the game, or convince the player that it is. (Hint: the statement "anything you use, the NPCs may use, too" usually works wonders.)Except when the PC in question is better at optimization than the DM, meaning that the latter would always be behind the curve in any such contest.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-21, 12:55 AM
Those would be some awfully thick rulebooks, in order to cover every imaginable action the characters could take. I'd hate to have to read 'em.
Hardly.

Here's my Complete Contingent Gaming System:
(1) The DM's job is to narrate the story. If a Player wants to do something, ey should raise eir hand and wait for the DM to call on em.

(2) The Player controls their Character's actions. Each Player shall have a Character that is described in prose and is approved by the DM. If a Player wants to take an action, ey should raise eir hand and wait for the DM to call on em.

(3) If a DM calls on a Player with a raised hand, the Player may declare eir action and its intended result. The DM then rolls a d6. If the die shows a 4, 5, or 6 then the Player's Character performs eir action and it has the intended result. If the die does not show a 4, 5 or 6 then the Player's Character did nothing. The Player can raise eir hand again, but cannot declare an action unless the DM calls on em.
There. See, there's no such thing as a Rule Zero in the CCGS! :smallcool:

* * * *
More seriously - Rule by Rule Zero is a bad way to run a game, but no system (aside from the CCGS!) can be run without some way to "break ties" as it were. Using human judgment instead of random chance in these situations usually results in a more "realistic" game which is why practically every RPG out there includes it in some fashion or another.

Also: Spivak Pronouns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spivak_pronouns)

ffone
2011-03-21, 01:07 AM
Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Rule 0 is an integral part of any RPG. Say, for instance, that a player wants his character to swing on a chandelier, leap off at the apex of its swing, and vault onto the giant's head, pointy object first. (Why there's a giant in a room with a chandelier, I'll never know, but it's as good an example as any.)

Find me a system that has a written rule for this specific action.

Rule 0 isn't just about the DM/GM/ST/Whatever. It's about the players' epicness as well.

3.5. Swashbuckler (Complete Warrior) has a class feature for this, IIRC it specifically mentions chandelier swinging. Basically it lets you 'charge' in silly ways. The character might still have to make a Jump a/o Climb DC.

Also in my experience the Rule of Cool (one name for what you're referring to; "let cool moves that need Creative Non-Rules-Lawyery thinking work b/c we want them to'") - most often results in very groan-worthy tropey things, and not actual *clever*ness or creativity.

Kaun
2011-03-21, 01:16 AM
If you don't want to use rule 0 when you run a game then don't.

End of argument. haha

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 01:33 AM
3.5. Swashbuckler (Complete Warrior) has a class feature for this, IIRC it specifically mentions chandelier swinging. Basically it lets you 'charge' in silly ways. The character might still have to make a Jump a/o Climb DC.

Also in my experience the Rule of Cool (one name for what you're referring to; "let cool moves that need Creative Non-Rules-Lawyery thinking work b/c we want them to'") - most often results in very groan-worthy tropey things, and not actual *clever*ness or creativity.

So by RAW swashbucklers and ONLY swashbucklers can swing on chandeliers. Hence Rule 0.

Yes Rule of Cool leads to silly, but its cleverness is of arguable equivelence to the 'actual' cleverness of total realism (aka boring-ism) or system mastery (aka abuse).

Thus my contention that it's all in how it's used, not the thing itself.

ZakRenning
2011-03-21, 02:15 AM
My biggest experience with Rule 0, was when out DM made a battle more like a video game cut-scene.

We killed the villain fairly quickly, but the DM REALLY liked this character and he had this really epic move he wanted to do, so he made him fly into the air, and almost kill our group leader who had full health, with one move.

Other than things like that, I like Rule 0 haha

Garwain
2011-03-21, 02:17 AM
As a DM, I once made a BBEG evolve into an even bigger BBEG when he was down to half his hp. I thought it would be fun, add some 'epicness' etc. After all, evolving bosses is kind of an old theme. Reaction from the group: "You are cheating us! You know you can't win this fight, and now you use rule zero!"

I was stunned. Granted, I never had a monster behave like that, but apparently that created expectations. After a debate I agreed to let them fight (and win) the lesser BBEG, but I did not hand out the juicy gear I custom made.

Totally Guy
2011-03-21, 02:24 AM
I don't like rule zero either. This blog post (http://bankuei.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/rule-zero/) is pretty close to my thoughts.

It's probably necessary with D&D though which is why I can't run it.

Sacrieur
2011-03-21, 02:36 AM
The point of D&D is to have fun, not to be a rule nazi. Now granted the rules are the rules, but adhering to them like they're your ticket to salvation is silly.

So quit trying to use to a ballista to sneak attack some commoner and then complain about the GM not allowing you to do it.

nyarlathotep
2011-03-21, 02:45 AM
The point of D&D is to have fun, not to be a rule nazi. Now granted the rules are the rules, but adhering to them like they're your ticket to salvation is silly.

So quit trying to use to a ballista to sneak attack some commoner and then complain about the GM not allowing you to do it.

This is not what we are complaining about, and your response shows the general divide between games that find mechanics in of themselves fun and those that don't. It is the latter's refusal to understand the former that causes at lot if not most rpg message board flame wars.

_Zoot_
2011-03-21, 02:55 AM
I think rule 0 is acceptable, much like any other rule, it needs to be agreed on by the group. In my game, I'll let a player try anything that makes sense in the game, I don't guarantee that it will work, but I'll let them try.

And with house rules, how can you people be so organised as to expect to know EVERY house rule in advance? :smallconfused: I find that REALLY impressive because I only tend to find there is a problem with a rule when it comes up in a game, for instance, the other day I discovered that the Improvised explosives rules let the players create booms that would be able to knock star ships out of the shy. That in it's self is fine, the problem is that they could build them out of practically anything and in 10 minuets.

I put my foot down there, I have talked it over with the party, but in the end, that kind of fire power should not be available with out some form of effort, and I am deeply impressed that you would have known all of this in advanced and mentioned it when the game started 8 months ago, or am annoyed that you consider it bad DMing.

absolmorph
2011-03-21, 03:29 AM
You want to know what I've used Rule Zero for?
I used it to make the Weapon Focus line (which is also only 2 feats now) good.
I used it to make Toughness kind of ridiculous (it could use rebalancing, really, but a 250 HP monster took only 3 rounds at level 7, so...).
I used it to make a character losing his eye into a benefit.
I used it to make one of my BBEGs fit the concept I had in mind better.
I used it to make the fighter better at fighting.
I used it to consistently make the campaign I'm running more enjoyable for my players.

That's the purpose of Rule Zero. When the chassis of the game system fits what you need, but the details are off. When an idea is just a little bit outside of what the game system provides. When your player wants to do something entirely outside the rules of the system.
You either choose to not do that, or you use Rule Zero and try to make it work with the rest of the system. It's not just about fixing the little problems left by the designers or railroading the players. The first is bad design and the second doesn't need anything beyond the standard rules.
Rule Zero is a tool to make sure the game is enjoyed by everyone.

When one part of the group spends time and effort creating an encounter for the majority of the group, they sometimes need special tools to make that encounter work.
For that, Rule Zero.
For everything else, there's MasterCard.

Drakevarg
2011-03-21, 03:35 AM
To the contrary, there is only Rule Zero.

Everything else is merely guidelines, to be tossed aside the moment they cease to convienance me. Strictly speaking I prefer to play honor-system RPs, provided the people I'm playing with are good enough to avoid immediately resorting to dodging every attack ever and pulling powers out of their ass. (They usually aren't, hence resorting to rules systems.)

Serpentine
2011-03-21, 03:57 AM
Falling back on rule zero in the middle of a game is a sign that the GM has screwed up and is trying to fix something by invalidating the PCs ideas or successes. This is bad GMing and bad story telling. If you screw up and the PCs have you beat you should find a way to let the story evolve organically rather than saying "the players rules are not my rules".I find this a peculiar, and peculiarly persistant, angle. In my case, at least, I'm much more likely to use Rule 0 to validate a PC idea or success, or at most to make an action make sense - as likely to be in the PC's favour as against them. My Rule 0b is "If you can convince me that it makes sense, I'll probably allow it." And that's still very much in the perview of Rule Zero.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 04:11 AM
To the contrary, there is only Rule Zero.

Everything else is merely guidelines, to be tossed aside the moment they cease to convienance me. Strictly speaking I prefer to play honor-system RPs, provided the people I'm playing with are good enough to avoid immediately resorting to dodging every attack ever and pulling powers out of their ass. (They usually aren't, hence resorting to rules systems.)

And this is why I am so deeply suspicious of these things. Rule Zero erodes the gamespace, leaving players sitting there naked and afraid as the rolling terrors from Otherplace smash down on them.



I find this a peculiar, and peculiarly persistant, angle. In my case, at least, I'm much more likely to use Rule 0 to validate a PC idea or success, or at most to make an action make sense - as likely to be in the PC's favour as against them. My Rule 0b is "If you can convince me that it makes sense, I'll probably allow it." And that's still very much in the perview of Rule Zero.

This tends to be the only use of RZero that I make.

potatocubed
2011-03-21, 04:13 AM
Rule 0 is power, and like any kind of power it can be used well or poorly.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 04:15 AM
Rule 0 is power, and like any kind of power it can be used well or poorly.

My issue is that I see it used well rarely. It seems to be the sort of power that tends to corrupt in more... indelicate ways.



This is not what we are complaining about, and your response shows the general divide between games that find mechanics in of themselves fun and those that don't. It is the latter's refusal to understand the former that causes at lot if not most rpg message board flame wars.

You have gained a cookie. It is a strange cookie, and you would swear you can see the bottom of the cookie in the interior facets of what you initially thought were chocolate chips.

Klein-cookie added to inventory.

NichG
2011-03-21, 04:34 AM
I would refuse to play in a game where the DM is unwilling or bound not to make Rule 0 style alterations. To me, its much like reducing the game to a computer game. I want to be surprised by stuff that shouldn't be possible by the rules, figure out how its working, etc. I also want to not have to deal with the game breaking due to the inherent inflexibility of (any) codified rules system.

Such power can be abused, but that is fixed by my ability to walk out of games with bad DMs. It may be that a bad DM can be rendered tolerable by applying shackles to their ability to actually DM the game, but you're still making the fundamental mistake of playing with a bad DM.

I've had too much fun with DMs who do crazy things far beyond the rules. Things like make a place have weird fake-out dreamlike properties that bypass simple things like magic, or faery realms where failing the save versus an illusion is the only way in, or energies that mess with you by modulating your history to be self-contradictory until the universe can no longer stand to contain you and spits you out to somewhere new, or ad hoc crossovers between D&D, RIFTS, Nobilis, and BESM, or ...

Along the same lines, I would refuse to DM a game under the constraint of no Rule 0 style alterations. Fundamentally, there are three problems here:

1. It would remove my ability to deal with things that destabilize the game or make it un-fun or strongly asymmetrically fun.

2. It would remove my ability to create surprising things for experienced players, new optimization challenges for people who like that who have done everything, etc.

3. It would remove my ability to prep game in a reasonable amount of time or improvise responses to players leaving the planned area effectively. Being able to say 'the party's numbers are roughly X, so here's a set of things with stats that are roughly Y and a few special abilities' is an incredibly powerful thing for avoiding railroad games and for keeping things challenging even when the party randomly goes off to yonder mountain or figures out a way to turn a portal into a Moebius strip and jaunts off to the Far Realms.

Morph Bark
2011-03-21, 04:47 AM
Stuff like this had been coming up recently...

Rule -Infinity of any RPG:
If you're having fun, you're doing it right. If not, then not.

Hence why I referenced Exalted. The books explicitly state that Rule One of Exalted is basically what you said. :smallwink:

Eldan
2011-03-21, 04:48 AM
I find this a peculiar, and peculiarly persistant, angle. In my case, at least, I'm much more likely to use Rule 0 to validate a PC idea or success, or at most to make an action make sense - as likely to be in the PC's favour as against them. My Rule 0b is "If you can convince me that it makes sense, I'll probably allow it." And that's still very much in the perview of Rule Zero.

Pretty much that, but I usually also add rule 0c: "But it will require an appropriate roll".

And really, rule 0 is the most important rule, and it applies to any game I've ever heard of. There was a Burning Wheel example. The DM decides which stat is used for an action. He sets the DC after looking at a table. That is rule 0.
Going back to D&D:
-the DM decides which optional rules are used. This includes splat books. In fact, the entire concept of prestige classes is presented as optional in the DMG. "Sure you can play a Beguiler."
-The DM writes house rules, or changes existing rules. "No, you don't need a spot check to see the moon, just because it's far away." "No, drowning can't heal you."
-The DM sets appropriate DCs and modifiers for actions. "The rain gives you a -2 penalty on balancing over the rope". "The loose sand on the ground makes it difficult to tell how many hobgoblins were in the warband just from the tracks." "The climb DC for that wall is 20."
-The DM can allow or disallow actions that the rules don't cover. "There is no rules on swinging from ropes, but I think a strength check to hold on is appropriate. The rope is just long enough to swing to the other side of the chasm."
-The DM makes decisions on rules that are ambiguous to prevent needless debate and keep the game flowing. "No, you can't use this spell to do that. I'll check the FAQ later."
-The DM creates the world and NPCs. "There is no blacksmith in town." "The shopkeeper doesn't sell potions of cure moderate wounds, but he will sell you cure light wounds at a discount because his daughter is among the hostages." "The ordial plane has strange properties, among them..."

That's all rule 0, and half of those examples apply to a lot of games, not just D&D.


And this is why I am so deeply suspicious of these things. Rule Zero erodes the gamespace, leaving players sitting there naked and afraid as the rolling terrors from Otherplace smash down on them.

You say it as if that were a bad thing :smalltongue:

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 04:50 AM
This is not what we are complaining about, and your response shows the general divide between games that find mechanics in of themselves fun and those that don't. It is the latter's refusal to understand the former that causes at lot if not most rpg message board flame wars.

I would argue mutual assedness and refusal to reach comprehension is the cause.

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 04:59 AM
Help help the thread is burning! :smalltongue:

Alright, let me sum up a few things, how I handle them and want them handled in games I play in:

* In case of broken game elements, of course you can fix them. But for a permanent solution, this should be a process involving _all_ system-savvy players.

* Houserules need to be _agreed on_ before the game begins, not simply declared. The DM as well as any other player can _propose_ house rules.

* Rule of Cool is different from Rule Zero. Players usually don't mind getting empowered, they mind getting gelded.

FWIW, a system can be both functional and compact and comprehensive. Although it will be rather coarse. Look at Savage Worlds. "Swinging from a chandelier to get a combat bonus"? -> Agility Trick, as simple as that.

As for the aforementioned example of "evolving boss": I guess your players just didn't play enough Final Fantasy or whatever Japano-RPG popularized that concept. In D&D, you could validate this by giving the BBEG a Ring of Shapechange 1/day, problem solved. Of course, this means that after the boss battle your party will be in possession of said Ring.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:00 AM
* Rule of Cool is different from Rule Zero. Players usually don't mind getting empowered, they mind getting gelded.


Is it? It's a decision made by the DM on the spot involving something that is outside off or a modification of the rules.
The only difference? Here it benefits the players so they won't argue.

What I agree is that making monsters or other opposition more dangerous on the spot because your players were creative is bad form. Easily bypassing an encounter by clever application of features should be rewarded.

But saying the boss has custom template which gives him an evolved form if he is badly hurt? Why not? "Inside the Black Knight, a hungry demon waits for release, barely restrained by the Knights will... if his will is ever broken, the knight ever distracted, it will break free and wreak havoc on the land..."

Saph
2011-03-21, 05:03 AM
There most definitely is a Rule Zero, and it gets used all the time.

Here are a few of the uses I've made of it within the last session of my campaign:

1) Choosing stats for NPCs.
2) Adjudicating what happens to a player character whose player isn't there for the session.
3) Checking/modifying a player's new PC.
4) Modifying Spot/Listen checks so characters can actually detect things at a distance.
5) Adjudicating Climb/Jump/Tumble rolls for when players want to do off-the-wall acrobatics.
6) Deciding how NPCs react to the PCs.
7) Deciding what spells, resources, and influence the enemy NPCs have access to while the PCs are doing something else.
8) Skipping rolls for actions I don't consider important enough to care about.

Honestly, if a player like the OP came up to me and told me that I wasn't allowed to use Rule Zero, my response would be to politely suggest that they find another game. It's pretty insulting to tell the DM what they can and can't do. (Now if you came up and asked me not to use Rule Zero in a specific way, and gave reasons for it, I'd be much more likely to say yes.)

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:06 AM
Heck, here's a few (for D&D. System I'm most familiar with).

Choosing your stats by point buy (or others methods of not rolling 4d6). Not rolling your HP when leveling. Choosing non-core material for character creation.

Serpentine
2011-03-21, 05:07 AM
* Houserules need to be _agreed on_ before the game begins, not simply declared. The DM as well as any other player can _propose_ house rules.I disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to expect most DMs, at least not really experienced ones, to know exactly how every single rule will work in every single situation, and I don't think it's unreasonable to install new houserules during the game - although obviously if it effects a PC's build they should be given an opportunity to change it.

* Rule of Cool is different from Rule Zero. Players usually don't mind getting empowered, they mind getting gelded.No, it really isn't. It's merely a subset of Rule Zero. And I use it to make characters more interesting or fun, not "empowered". In fact, players abusing my "if you can convince me, I'll allow it" Rule Zero for power reasons is the sort of thing that would make me withdraw it.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 05:10 AM
So, a lot of my problems come from the fact that Rule Zero is often used to reduce or annihilate player agency, and the ability of the players to get good mechanistic handles on how the world works. I think it's a wonderful tool, it's just the sort of thing I feel should be used in small doses. Consistency is pretty important, and is part of how we generate and maintain the suspension of disbelief.

So, basically, I'm just bitter. A lot of my frustration stems from the fact that people cite rule zero instead of explaining how something works, or to justify their decisions. Rule zero requires a justification, it doesn't serve as one. Even if that justification is only ever internal, before you break the rules, you should spin your reasoning around in your head a few times. Try to see how the players will see it.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:13 AM
Well, of course, I think we all agree on that.

Rule 0 is a tool, an all-pervasise, essential tool that is the only thing that makes a game possible in the first place. It is hand of the creator that reaches from the heavens to breathe life into a new gameworld.

It is also a tool that can easily be abused, even unknowingly, and to devastating effect.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 05:15 AM
Well, of course, I think we all agree on that.

Rule 0 is a tool, an all-pervasise, essential tool that is the only thing that makes a game possible in the first place. It is hand of the creator that reaches from the heavens to breathe life into a new gameworld.

It is also a tool that can easily be abused, even unknowingly, and to devastating effect.

I don't know, Eldan, I get the distinct feeling around here that a lot of people don't agree on that at all. I think Firechanter has a point, though perhaps not the point he expected. It's best to reach for Rule Zero last, and to comport yourself by and at large as though there is no rule zero.

As for it being all-pervasive, I think that good rules help make it less necessary, if only be reducing the burden on the GM. Rules should help, should lift, should carry.

Hecuba
2011-03-21, 05:18 AM
This tends to be the only use of RZero that I make.

Personally, the majority of Rule Zero usage in groups I GM or play for tend to fall into only a few categories (all of which I find acceptable):

1. Adjudicating actions not covered. This is actually one of the GM's primary jobs in my opinions, but some people I know seem to think it qualifies. I disagree: you're not placing your judgments ahead of those of the game design, you're making a judgment where the game design is silent.

2. Adjudicating actions we can't be bothered to remember the rules for. Like bombardment rules or the rules for dehydration. We'll look them up in advance if we expect them to come up, but if it comes up mid-session unexpectedly, I and most of the people I play with would far prefer that the GM, say, set a DC and skill/attribute dependency and resolve it with some form of d20 roll.

3. Giving a handicap to a new player. Sometimes, some short-term concessions needs to be made for people whose level of system mastery and/or gaming experience is far below that of the rest of the group. Generally, in my circles, it's the GM who makes it.

For example, there is a person who joined one of my regular groups recently who had never played before. The GM helped him build the character, but the player was a bit more reckless than he or the GM expected in character creation. So the GM ret-conned into having always had 18 stam instead of 16.

4. Creating plot plot elements. Some times you need a McGuffin that the rules shouldn't allow. Sometimes the BBEG has abilities that are not available to PCs.

For example, there was a guard captain in a game last Tuesday that was medium but could somehow trample my human rogue. I'm fine with that on an NPC; if it were on a PC, I would probably question the GM's judgment.

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 05:19 AM
I disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to expect most DMs, at least not really experienced ones, to know exactly how every single rule will work in every single situation, and I don't think it's unreasonable to install new houserules during the game

Actually I concur. Sometimes you need to install houserules in a running game, but _there too_ everyone should be okay with it. In the middle of the game you may need an ad hoc solution to keep the game going, but the issue should be resolved properly between sessions.

In practice, the same reason you name is why I do not want to put up with unrestricted Rule Zeroness: inexperienced GMs. I've seen it too often that DMs that don't know the ropes too well erroneously decide something is "broken" when it isn't, or introduce new houserules that are unnecessary and lame. I'd rather these GMs trust the judgment of a more experienced player than invoke their "right of being always right".

This whole discussion is redundant if we assume an ideal GM who both knows the rules really well and can make the game fun for the players. My beef with Rule Zero stems from bad experiences with GMs.

Saph
2011-03-21, 05:19 AM
I don't know, Eld, I get the distinct feeling around here that a lot of people don't agree on that at all. I think Firechanter has a point, though perhaps not the point he expected. It's best to reach for Rule Zero last, and to comport yourself by and at large as though there is no rule zero.

The trouble with this approach is that it often bogs the game down in endless rules arguments. I've got one DM who insists on always playing by the book instead of houseruling or Rule Zeroing, and it's not uncommon for a single combat round to take half an hour while he pages through the book looking for whether you can do action X as part of a move action or whether it has to be a standard. (Often the rule under scrutiny is trivial anyway.)

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 05:22 AM
The trouble with this approach is that it often bogs the game down in endless rules arguments. I've got one DM who insists on always playing by the book instead of houseruling or Rule Zeroing, and it's not uncommon for a single combat round to take half an hour while he pages through the book looking for whether you can do action X as part of a move action or whether it has to be a standard. (Often the rule under scrutiny is trivial anyway.)

I have, as you might suspect, a rather good memory, but I do often handle some of the more esoteric things on the fly. I try to be careful to remember exactly how I handled it last time, and use a very close approximation.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:23 AM
That was actually a house rule all people in our group (who also all DMed) agreed on: hands of the books during the action, and no arguments. Combat takes long enough as it is.

Serpentine
2011-03-21, 05:24 AM
Actually I concur. Sometimes you need to install houserules in a running game, but _there too_ everyone should be okay with it. In the middle of the game you may need an ad hoc solution to keep the game going, but the issue should be resolved properly between sessions.And that's called "Rule Zero".

This whole discussion is redundant if we assume an ideal GM who both knows the rules really well and can make the game fun for the players. My beef with Rule Zero stems from bad experiences with GMs.Then it's extra-silly to declare that "There is no Rule Zero" and that "the DM is bound to the same rules as the player", when you acknowledge that good DMs are fully capable of employing Rule Zero well.

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 05:24 AM
Hint: if a player wants to pull off a stunt you don't know the exact rules for, have them roll their D20 _before_ starting to pore over your tomes. If it's a very low roll, it likely fails anyway. If it's a high roll, it likely succeeds anyway. If it's an average roll, well, then you will have to either duke it out with the rulebook or agree on a "partial success" or the like with the player. (Or invoke Rule of Cool and say it succeeds. But don't invoke Rule Zero to say it fails just because you don't want to look it up.)

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 05:25 AM
That was actually a house rule all people in our group (who also all DMed) agreed on: hands of the books during the action, and no arguments. Combat takes long enough as it is.

On the other hand, sometimes it really matters, like with grapple rules, unfortunately. Fortunately, the SRD is searchable.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:26 AM
Heh. I never really got people's beef with the grapple rules. Never found them that complicated. It's a series of logical steps, all of which make sense to me.

And in my general opinion, flow is much more important than correctness. The rules are guidelines in any case, and if you don't remember the exact guidelines for a situation, make your own.

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 05:29 AM
@Serpentine: but in my experience, there is no such thing as the "ideal DM". If you know one, ship him to me by priority mail. Don't forget to drill air holes in the box.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:30 AM
There's no ideal DM, but there's plenty of adequate DMs, in my experience.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 05:32 AM
There's no ideal DM, but there's plenty of adequate DMs, in my experience.

My experience is that there are excellent GMs, and their hallmark is that they care about their players.

The Big Dice
2011-03-21, 05:36 AM
Getting back to the OP and the issues brought up in the first post.

The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else. If he is allowed to cheat, so is everyone else. Since that would destroy the game, the only possible consequence is: the GM must not cheat.
I agree on the use of the term GM. However, if the GM is just like any other player, try playing an RPG without one.

Sure, Ars Magica experimented with the idea of doing away with the GM altogether, but that's not exactly a good example of a mainstream RPG. The fact is, the Gm needs to be able to have th flexibility to make a call that isn't specifically covered in the rules. Take away that ability and suddenly you're in a position where you can't catch a ball.

And if a game can't model a game of baseball, it can't claim to have any validity when it comes to any other physical activity.

The GM has a lot of flexibility without cheating or bending the rules. If he wants the BBEG to have some power that's not in the books, he can create it. D&D of all games has probably the least call for this, because there are thousands of everything: PrCs, feats, spells. But that only aside.
Actually, no. If the GM can't modify things on the fly, then the only flexibility the GM has is in the ability to spawn limitless NPCs. And even that is an expression of Rule 0, because without that rule, if you the GM didn't write it down prior to the session, then you shouldn't be able to use it as a GM.

So in other words, taking away Rule 0 is taking away my ability to improvise responses to situations that players create with their own improvisations.

Above all, the GM must not castrate a player character by denying him the benefit of a feature the player "paid" for, just because it would ruin his precious plot. If there's nothing in the rules that can stop the player from busting your plot -- well then build a better one for crying out loud!
Why should a character never have an ability neutralised? Picard gets off the Enterprise now and then. Superman has kryptonite in all colours to contend with. Adversity is what tests character. If your character can't deal with a situation where he doesn't have access to some of his abilities, then the player is in serious danger of spitting his dummy (pacifier) in a tantrum.

That's not to say that the GM should constantly find reasons why something doesn't work. But if the player is incapable of accepting that things don't always go his way, maybe the player is the one with the issue and not the GM. Things always get blamed on the GM, it's never the player at fault.

As for the write a better plot jibe, a player made a similar comment to me during a game session once. So I gave him my stack of books, folder full of notes and tub of dice. I said "If you're so amazing at this, you finish up the session" and went to get myself a drink.

Funny thing is, the guy with the mouth never ever made another quip like that again.

D&D offers a plethora of possibilities, both to the DM and the players. It is impossible to know them all by heart. So it can very well happen that a player comes up with something that stumps you. When that happens, either concede defeat or ask for a time-out to come up with a way to continue your adventure. Over time, you will learn.
Banning Rule 0 is banning the ability to experiment and learn from mistakes.

Because making mistakes is fine, as long as you recognise them, admit to them and learn from them.

If on the other hand you are concerned that something a player does is "overpowered", it is still bad style to just forbid it. Instead of confrontation, try to build a consensus. Either let yourself be convinced that the thing is not breaking the game, or convince the player that it is. (Hint: the statement "anything you use, the NPCs may use, too" usually works wonders.)
I've seen people get irate about the idea that anything the PCs do, the NPCs can do as well on these forums. People also complain if they think the GM is doing things like leaving a few spell slots empty to be filled with things that the Gm might not have thought of, or not assigning a feat so that you can add something appropriate on the fly. And there's less egregious things that Rule 0 allows.

Simply weilding the banhammer isn't the answer. Letting the GM learn and develop experience is.

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

So much for now. Have fun. ^^
How about, if my player is hell bent on breaking the game, I invoke "three strikes and you're out" instead. And then carry on using Rule 0 to say yes to my players when they ask if there's a table nearby that they can kick over, or if there's a soft landing when they dive head first out of a third floor window.

Serpentine
2011-03-21, 05:44 AM
@Serpentine: but in my experience, there is no such thing as the "ideal DM". If you know one, ship him to me by priority mail. Don't forget to drill air holes in the box.If you require an ideal DM to make use of all the rules - of which Rule 0 is but one - to your satisfaction, then I marvel that you've had a good DM experience at all.

Totally Guy
2011-03-21, 05:51 AM
I don't think we are all talking about the same rule 0.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 05:55 AM
Well, let's define rule 0 first, then.

My definition would be something along the lines off:

"The GM has the liberty to change, ignore, modify and expand - wherever he deems it necessary for the entire group's enjoyment of the game - any the rules of the game as well as the setting, both in advance and properly communicated to the players with all its ramifications, as well as during gameplay."

Otherwise? You end up with cities generated by the DMG's list of NPCs, where you know the stats of the NPCs, as well as how many wizards a town of size X has to have.

Of course, there's also rule -1: If you don't like the rules, feel free to leave, ask someone else to leave, or request a change of the rules.

Totally Guy
2011-03-21, 05:59 AM
But you said:


There was a Burning Wheel example. The DM decides which stat is used for an action. He sets the DC after looking at a table. That is rule 0.

I know that this rule is written in the first chapter of the book. So although the GM is the one that sets the difficulty that's the rule of the game. Which means that no rules have been modified in the example.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 06:02 AM
For example, in my Burning Wheel game, I would make this a linked test between a characters Speed stat, and Weapon skill. Per the rules of Burning Wheel, I would assign the difficulty based on the example Obstacles in the book, let the player know what needs to be rolled for success, and let the dice hit the table.

Burning Wheel doesn't try to cover all possible actions that can be taken. Instead of listing explicit actions, it provides the GM and the PCs a framework for building tests in a consistent manner. There are some specific rules in the game, like Intent and Task, and Say Yes or Roll the Dice, that allow the system to either bypass unnecessary rolls entirely or adjudicate otherwise unusual situations based on what the player is trying to accomplish and what stat or skill they are trying to use.

Highlights for emphasis. Note that I'm not actually familiar with the system. However, all those parts look a lot like rule 0 to me. The DM makes a judgement call on something that is not spelt out in detail in the rules.

To me, making your own rules when they are not provided is covered under the "expand" part of my definition.

absolmorph
2011-03-21, 06:03 AM
But the DM can decide they don't like the difficulty given by the book and modify it by whatever they feel is right and will make the game flow better and be more enjoyable.

arpin
2011-03-21, 06:14 AM
No he's not, and both the PhB and the DMG make this clear as soon as possible.
Except doing so for D&D makes the game more bland and formulaic than it currently is.

The DM/GM/Storyteller is not a player and has to invest exponentially more effort than each of his players combined. Secondly you seem to be treating Rule zero as nothing but cheating when it's use is much more expansive than that.
And most of them are worthless. Against even a moderately optimized group of players more than 75% of everything in D&D will fail to be a believable threat to the players. Against a highly optimized group of players nearly 90% of all printed material for 3.5 is useless.

Character is built through suffering. Suffering is earned. If a player does something and the immediate result is losing a feature they've "paid for". Tough. They get to deal with the consequences of their actions just as if the DM failed to properly shield the plot of his adventure. Which you are aware is pretty much impossible to do? Contact Other Plane is enough to get intell on pretty much any plot and the answers can be mathematically assured of their accuracy.

Without rule zero, no plot can actually be secured without the plot being "everyone you could contact through Contact Other Plane is dead, your job is to find out why".

Except when the PC in question is better at optimization than the DM, meaning that the latter would always be behind the curve in any such contest.

As a GM, you need a balance of using and not using rule zero. Most of my players are fairly new to the game, so their characters have not been optimized. I rarely have trouble adapting the material in the books to deal with my PCs, so I can't comment much on that use, however my method of dealing with rule zero is this:
Nothing can be arbitrary. But as long as there is logic behind what a GM does, they can do it.
Divination spells are also nasty to a plotline, especially convoluted ones like I make. If the GM wants to limit those, it makes the game better. An easy game is nothing.

Totally Guy
2011-03-21, 06:19 AM
Highlights for emphasis. Note that I'm not actually familiar with the system. However, all those parts look a lot like rule 0 to me. The DM makes a judgement call on something that is not spelt out in detail in the rules.

To me, making your own rules when they are not provided is covered under the "expand" part of my definition.

But it's spelt out in the rules that the GM should make that judgement. Hence a lot of the confusion.

Perhaps it'd be better to discuss on a system by system basis rather than something that applies to the entire hobby.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 06:20 AM
In that case, to me, Burning Wheel is a system which explicitly calls out rule 0, which other systems don't.

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 06:20 AM
@The Big Dice:
I agree that GMs need time to learn the ropes of the game. However, unrestricted use of Rule Zero can counteract this. If the GM feels he can always just use Power Word:No whenever he is stumped by a player, there's the risk he will never learn.

I guess I like what someone wrote further up: the GM should only invoke Rule Zero as a last resort.

On another note, regarding the comment about "towns populated by DMG lists", I'd have a lot to say about that. These lists don't make any sense, so fixing them is one of the things I see to having installed as houserules in my games. A society where 95% of the populace can be killed by a common housecat in one round? Come on. Level 1 just doesn't make any sense, so average level is 3, and the PCs also start at level 3. Just a little example on the side. Usually everyone is okay with this kind of change, so it's not "rule zero".

Eldan
2011-03-21, 06:22 AM
Just a little example on the side. Usually everyone is okay with this kind of change, so it's not "rule zero".

This I've seen mentioned before in the thread, and I don't understand it.

"I don't like rule 0".
"If I like it, it's not rule 0".

So, it's only rule 0 if the players don't like it? As soon as it's nice for everyone and makes sense, it's not rule 0 anymore? Why? What kind of definition is that?

I gave my definition of rule 0 above. Could you give yours?

absolmorph
2011-03-21, 06:26 AM
Usually everyone is okay with this kind of change, so it's not "rule zero".
Then of course you hate Rule Zero!
Kids these days...

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 06:38 AM
The difference is whether the GM can arbitrarily decide, or needs to get the players' support, especially for permanent effects.
These houserules don't necessarily need to be favouring the players. They just need to see and agree that they make sense and improve the game.

If you want, interpret it as "checks and balances" to ensure that the DM doesn't screw up.

Another example: in one D&D game I played in, the DM insisted on using Fumble rules. I.e. if you roll a 1 in combat, you don't just miss, but (moderately) bad things happen. So that was Rule Zero, and a bad one. From session 1 onwards I kept telling him how little sense it makes when a level 16 "badass" Ranger is 7 times as likely to fumble than a level 1 Anything. But he wouldn't listen for a long time. Eventually he stopped using these stupid Fumble rules, but I don't remember whether it was because (at higher levels) he finally saw himself what I predicted all along, or because of our increasing pissedness.

BayardSPSR
2011-03-21, 06:46 AM
@The Big Dice:
I agree that GMs need time to learn the ropes of the game. However, unrestricted use of Rule Zero can counteract this. If the GM feels he can always just use Power Word:No whenever he is stumped by a player, there's the risk he will never learn.

I guess I like what someone wrote further up: the GM should only invoke Rule Zero as a last resort...

...Usually everyone is okay with this kind of change, so it's not "rule zero".

In the system I use, the traditional response from a Narrator (what it calls GMs) to a player over a tricky question is "You can try." Since one of the traits of the system is that the Narrator sets the difficulty for any skill test and is not required to tell the players the difficulty, this usually works pretty well without resulting in disputes (as a player knowing the difficulty and failing by 1 could result in the player complaining that the difficulty should be realistically lower in attempt to get the slight reduction [a situation where the player does not know how much they failed by is less likely to result in the player trying for a slight change in difficulty as they don't know whether or not it will help them]). Of course, the system does encourage sandboxes and improvisation even when there is a clear plot, so that helps.

That said, you're right in saying that GMs need experience to get the hang of GMing; something that I feel is good cause to tolerate worse GMs - their job is always harder than that of the players.

I do not believe Rule Zero is a bad thing; I believe it's integral to RPGs of any kind (that said, I haven't played all that many systems, so I'm probably wrong, but my feeling is that it's not an RPG if it doesn't have infinite potential). On the other hand, Rule Zero combined with a Killer GM is most certainly a recipe for disaster - which is usually why we dislike Killer GMs, not why we dislike Rule Zero.

As Eldan said, though, judging by your last sentence your definition of Rule Zero is rather similar to the most common definition of fascist. I do not mean to criticize; I'm just trying to get a better handle on the definitions we all have in play. I'm not getting involved in politics; I'm just making a reference to that guy who said "a fascist is someone I don't like" or something along those lines.


The difference is whether the GM can arbitrarily decide, or needs to get the players' support, especially for permanent effects.
Sorry! You jumped in ahead of me. I see what you mean now; you're making the distinction between 'the DM can do whatever' and 'we can all agree the rules need a tweak'. On that, I can definitely agree with you; the players should at least be granted a unanimous veto if the GM does something dumb, though I'd hope that doesn't need to be an explicit rule. My groups tend to control abuses on both sides with a concept of 'bad form' and 'good form', Captain Hook-style, so we don't have a lot of problems that can't be solved with a disapproving shake of the head. Tends to work.

dsmiles
2011-03-21, 07:07 AM
In the system I use, the traditional response from a Narrator (what it calls GMs) to a player over a tricky question is "You can try." Since one of the traits of the system is that the Narrator sets the difficulty for any skill test and is not required to tell the players the difficulty, this usually works pretty well without resulting in disputes (as a player knowing the difficulty and failing by 1 could result in the player complaining that the difficulty should be realistically lower in attempt to get the slight reduction [a situation where the player does not know how much they failed by is less likely to result in the player trying for a slight change in difficulty as they don't know whether or not it will help them]). Of course, the system does encourage sandboxes and improvisation even when there is a clear plot, so that helps.Wait. What? There's systems (other than "storyteller") that require you to tell players the DC of an action?

Eldan
2011-03-21, 07:09 AM
That depends. You don't really have to explicitly tell them, but in D&D, the basic skill DCs are in the PHB. So a player, if he has good memory, can remember what the DC for climbing a stone wall is supposed to be.

dsmiles
2011-03-21, 07:19 AM
That depends. You don't really have to explicitly tell them, but in D&D, the basic skill DCs are in the PHB. So a player, if he has good memory, can remember what the DC for climbing a stone wall is supposed to be.
I'm a big fan of the "This is my roll + bonuses total, did I make it?" method. My players rarely look up skill DCs, and rely on my judgement to make the call. I like it that way, even though they all know that the DC to climb a knotted rope against a wall is 5, they still ask if they made it.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 07:21 AM
Of course they do, and I'll always reserve the right to include modifiers as necessary. But they will at least have a general idea. If I say "The wall is rough, but slippery from wet lichen that is just beginning to freeze in the cooling evening air", they know that I'll be giving them a circumstance modifier for wet terrain, and a base DC for rough walls.

Ursus the Grim
2011-03-21, 07:23 AM
If you dismiss rule zero, doesn't that completely deny any homebrewing from the DM? Class/race rebalances, bannings, etc? After all, nearly all of those are just the DM saying, "I don't like X, so it is Y." Without rule zero or the complete consent of the characters, this is impossible to implement.

A lot of opponents say the rules should cover everything and the DM shouldn't ad hoc anything. But what happens when there is a problematic aspect of a rule, but the overall system is better than another, similar system? Do you just suck it up and switch to a more boring system just so all the rules fall neatly into place?

Rule zero is all about enjoyment and fairness. As RAW, there is no stopping some incarnation of pun-pun. Rule zero should be used with moderation, but it is a necessity.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 07:27 AM
This was actually why I wanted to see everyone's definition of rule 0 first. (Basic debate technique: define your terms!).

For the OP, and several posters, it seems to mean "the DM makes arbitrary rulings without consulting the players or even telling them, often unfairly biased against them."

While to me, it means "The DM makes a decision on something not or not sufficiently covered by the rules."

And of course, the game generally works under the assumption that the DM is allowed to do the second. While the first can often just be dickish behaviour.

Of course, "Thou shalt not be a ****" is not only a rule of the game, it's a rule of basic human interaction.

Otherworld Odd
2011-03-21, 07:30 AM
Then I guess when your character is about to die, the DM shouldn't throw you a bone in any way because that would probably not make sense and be against the rules. >_>;. Have fun with that.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-21, 07:32 AM
Then I guess when your character is about to die, the DM shouldn't throw you a bone in any way because that would probably not make sense and be against the rules. >_>;. Have fun with that.

Ah, so you have not met the Exalted forum inhabitants yet. :smalltongue:

((Yes, there are a lot of people who would rather have their character die fairly than letting him live through GM fiat.))

Kurald Galain
2011-03-21, 07:46 AM
While to me, it means "The DM makes a decision on something not or not sufficiently covered by the rules."
To me, it also means "The DM uses spells, items, or monsters that aren't found in an official sourcebook, but are of a comparable power level".

For example, if my plot calls for a feytouched bear that is invisible, then I'm not going to hunt through a dozen source books to see if there is a rule that allows this; I'm just going to take an existing bear, add "invisibility 3/day" as an inherent power, and call it a day. Then if the players are surprised by this, I point out that their characters are also surprised by this, and they can do research or some skill checks to figure out what's going on.

Gnoman
2011-03-21, 07:48 AM
I've often had to invoke rule 0 when a player was obviously doing something wrong, but I couldn't see the exact reason why it was wrong at the time. For example, a level 8 (+2 LA) cleric in my game tried to mix a daylight spell and mirror image to kill a level 15 vampire wizard. I knew that there was no way that two level one spells could do that, but in the middle of combat, i didn't have tme to find the exact reasons why. So I just told him. "That does not work. You cannot do that. Or do you want me to get the meteors?" After the game, of course, I was able to, with help from here, find no less than twenty seven RAW violations in his plan.

Firechanter
2011-03-21, 08:23 AM
@Homebrews:
As I said, talk it over with your players beforehand, and everything's fine.
In practice, you can usually get away with just _informing_ them what you are going to do, but if one or more players thinks your changes are problematic, you need to take the time and come to an agreement.

@Lifesaving Parachute:
Borderline case. In D&D, it doesn't matter so much since there are enough spells to bring you back from the dead. In other games, I can totally understand anyone who does it. I hate it myself when a developed character dies.
However, I also remember a Savage Worlds campaign where the GM severely underestimated the power of some wildcard NPCs, a damage roll exploded at the worst moment, my (Heroic Tier) character soaked poorly and ran out of bennies, and strictly by the rules he would have died. Note that SW characters don't die so easily, but in this case it would have been just over. The GM said nah, he's just incapacitated. Also he invoked a kind of deus ex machina to prevent a TPK. Okay, so by GM fiat he lived, but I lost interest in playing this character, although I loved him very much; I knew he was by rights dead, even though it was more the GM's fault than mine.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 08:28 AM
I keep reading references to "rule zero", in the sense of "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

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

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

Would agree. Also, game design is, IMHO, trending away from empowering rule zero-like things anyhow. Sure, GM interpretation is often still required, but the scope of it is often lessened.


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

It is certainly not desirable for the GM to do "anything he likes". In fact, much of the rules of D&D caution GMs against the potential problems involved with uses of rule zero. However, invocations of rule zero almost never mention these caveats. It's simply a "The gm can do whatever he wants".

Well, yes he can, in the same sense that a player can cheat every dice roll. But, if you want the game to not suck, he shouldn't.


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

Rulings by consensus work well in a mature group. I played in a level 1-15 campaign that lasted for quite a while, with round robin DMing. All rulings of what was overpowered were made by the group as a whole. It worked quite well. The group only broke up due to people physically moving away.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-21, 08:59 AM
Let's see if I can help. To us non-traditional gamer types, rule 0 symbolizes a power divide between player and GM that we find antiquated at best. Yes, technically, everything the GM creates during the course of the game falls under rule 0, as you won't find these things in the rulebooks. However, the same can be said of the players.

To us, the GM and players have a cooperative goal - to tell a fun and interesting story. They each use different modes to facilitate this goal (player encourages their characters to pursue goals, GM puts obstacles in front of those goals), but the end result should be good story.

Rule 0, even if not explicit, seems to say to us as players, "you can't affect the world or story with your character's actions unless the GM is okay with it."

erikun
2011-03-21, 09:06 AM
I feel compelled to point out one thing at this point: Not all systems are transparent. Not every system spells out every possibility to the players beforehand, or informs them of every chance of success on every roll. Part of this is to prevent "system mastery" from turning every decision into a numbers game, and part of it is to preserve the idea that the characters (even the players) don't know everything that could possibly happen. In AD&D, you weren't even told all the magical properities of the sword you used, much less the full stat block of the orc you were fighting!

As I've mentioned before, a GM can use homebrew to allow anything that Rule Zero would allow. The problem is not a specific printed rule somewhere in the rulebooks, but abusing and inappropriate use of GM liberities against the players.

Heck, even the player consent rule becomes awkward at times. Imagine a World of Darkness game where you ask your players if allowing a ghost possession humans the ability to shapeshift their host with animal-like properities - and then running a campaign where "werewolf" attacks are the main theme! Sure, you could try bluffing the players by making the request but using an actual werewolf, or my making the request but not using it until several sessions later, but this seems to be counter to the idea of being open with players.


More seriously - Rule by Rule Zero is a bad way to run a game, but no system (aside from the CCGS!) can be run without some way to "break ties" as it were. Using human judgment instead of random chance in these situations usually results in a more "realistic" game which is why practically every RPG out there includes it in some fashion or another.
I think you've found the only system that truely doesn't use Rule Zero: a game where the decisions of the players outrule the decisions of the GM. Then again, this could just be considered another application of Rule Zero - one that is in the players' hands instead.

Otherworld Odd
2011-03-21, 09:08 AM
Ah, so you have not met the Exalted forum inhabitants yet. :smalltongue:

((Yes, there are a lot of people who would rather have their character die fairly than letting him live through GM fiat.))

Oh, I'm definitely one of those people. I was just speaking on behalf of the metric ton of people I've met who think otherwise, mainly my playgroup. >.>

Karoht
2011-03-21, 09:13 AM
Character wants to perform a certain action that isn't well described in the rules. DM wants to allow it but doesn't have a good guildline to follow (or can't find it easily, as it exact situation is covered in Dragon Magazine issue XYZ, how dare he NOT know that) so the DM fudges it. Allows the character to just make a *blah* check to cover the situation. Rule Zero.

Subsequently, a Player brings in an issue of Dragon Magazine and wants to use something from the magazine. DM knows that it's going to upset the balance of the game completely. Rule Zero.

Rule Zero is a tool, as everyone else has indicated repeatedly.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 09:19 AM
Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Rule 0 is an integral part of any RPG. Say, for instance, that a player wants his character to swing on a chandelier, leap off at the apex of its swing, and vault onto the giant's head, pointy object first. (Why there's a giant in a room with a chandelier, I'll never know, but it's as good an example as any.)

Find me a system that has a written rule for this specific action.

7th Sea springs to mind.

This is, for 7th Sea, remarkably standard.

Morph Bark
2011-03-21, 09:21 AM
A lot of my frustration stems from the fact that people cite rule zero instead of explaining how something works, or to justify their decisions. Rule zero requires a justification, it doesn't serve as one. Even if that justification is only ever internal, before you break the rules, you should spin your reasoning around in your head a few times. Try to see how the players will see it.

This is why, as a DM, I hate it when I ask people, irl or at the Playground, a question regarding where I can find some item, monster or rule or whichever, and amongst the first responses are such things like "just Rule Zero it", "just make something up", "go homebrew something".

If I wanted to do that, I would have done that already. Heck, When my party does something I haven't anticipated, my mind sometimes calculates up a statted-up-on-the-spot NPC if necessary, like a guard for the back door of a tavern (of course, up until the point someone asked about a back door, there wasn't one, but because it seemed like a good idea, I'd put it in).

Rule Zero/Two can be used and abused, for good and for bad. If a DM can't apply it properly (your definition of "properly" in this case may vary), it doesn't make them a bad DM, but it prevents them from being a great one unless they are crazy prepared and nothing that is outside the rules comes up.

Personally? I don't want to have to keep all the rules in my head. I deal enough with grappling already.


On a sidenote, houserules in my group basically follow the pattern of: 1) player asks if he can do something, but we find that it isn't in the rules or requires a feat or skill trick that has very limited use and power, 2) I make something up, 3) if it is accepted, the houserule is added to our list, otherwise it is dropped and the player comes up with something else.


Ah, so you have not met the Exalted forum inhabitants yet. :smalltongue:

((Yes, there are a lot of people who would rather have their character die fairly than letting him live through GM fiat.))

I only very recently got into Exalted and even before then I hated living through GM fiat unless the death was lousy. :smalltongue:

In a 4E campaign my half-elf warlock came to dying three times in the same session (once through monster gang-up and the DM underestimating the monsters, once through an unlucky fall combined with a sneaky enemy - which the DM later called back so that it actually was only that he hit the negatives twice that session - and once through a lethal board game and a bit of bad luck). The next session he actually did die and in a much lousier way and soon after the two Defenders were both killed and nearly the party sorcerer as well. Only the invoker's cowardliness and the ranger's crazy movement speed and quick thinking saved the other half.

The worst part? He whispered his dying words to his cousin, a half-elf paladin, who died prettymuch the round after. Now his three adopted children (well, actually nine, but I only ever learned the name of three of them) will never learn of his death and will be stuck at Uncle Bob's place. :smallfrown:

Jayabalard
2011-03-21, 09:22 AM
The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else. If he is allowed to cheat, so is everyone else. Since that would destroy the game, the only possible consequence is: the GM must not cheat.Not so; he is, quite literally, the master of the game. He controls the horizontal and the vertical.

There's nothing special or holy about the rules, and there's no reason for a GM to follow them if that's not what makes sense at the time. He can, and absolutely should make rulings to keep the game running smoothly.

When he does this, the disgruntled player's options are 1) talk about the problem after the game or 2) vote with their feet.


ask for a time-out to come up with a way to continue your adventure.This sounds like the worst idea, ever...

As the GM, you should make a decision, even if it's wrong, and then everyone should move on with the game.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 09:28 AM
And with house rules, how can you people be so organised as to expect to know EVERY house rule in advance?

There's an invention to help with this. It's called writing.


:smallconfused: I find that REALLY impressive because I only tend to find there is a problem with a rule when it comes up in a game, for instance, the other day I discovered that the Improvised explosives rules let the players create booms that would be able to knock star ships out of the shy. That in it's self is fine, the problem is that they could build them out of practically anything and in 10 minuets.

See, this is why you read the rulebook BEFORE the game. Then you know how to play it.

You should make especially sure to read and understand things your players pick for their characters.


I put my foot down there, I have talked it over with the party, but in the end, that kind of fire power should not be available with out some form of effort, and I am deeply impressed that you would have known all of this in advanced and mentioned it when the game started 8 months ago, or am annoyed that you consider it bad DMing.

Look, if there's a skill involving the word "explosives", I can pretty much guarantee my players will try it. So, I'll read it in advance. I read the rulebooks before I even recommend a system for play. After all...why would you recommend something you did not understand?

Morph Bark
2011-03-21, 09:31 AM
This sounds like the worst idea, ever...

As the GM, you should make a decision, even if it's wrong, and then everyone should move on with the game.

Better to call for a time-out and legitimately admit that you're at a loss for the moment rather than come up with something that will disgruntle the players. More important than Rule Zero is Rule Fun. Why? Because Fun Rules. If you stop having fun, you're no longer playing a game. You're doing a job.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 09:33 AM
The GM is not an absolute master or some kind of dictator.

However, he has, in a fashion, more rights than the players. He can change the rules or invent new rules, and he is the one shaping the world.

The group chooses its GM. Most of the burden of creating an enjoyable adventure rests on his shoulders and in exchange, he gains limited power.

The limits of this power are, once again, decided upon by the group. But they are there and they are, in my opinion, necessary for the game.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-21, 10:00 AM
Issue#1 - The GM is not a player. If the GM is a player he is doing it wrong. GMPCs are onething (and not neccessarily bad), but they should be minimal, and never take away from the party. The GM is THE facilitator. Rule0 is a tool for facilitation. You don't take a carpenter's hammer, don't take my Rule0.

Issue#2 - Rule 0 allows you to skip the dice and roleplay. Do you want to talk something out with an NPC, as long as the person is talking in character and with in the bounds of their listed abilities I will not make them roll dice. Diplomacy checks are for when you don't know what to say but your character might. Bluff and Sense motive are still rolled, but that's something else (I am a bad liar).

Issue#3 - Rule 0 is only unneccessary in a perfect system. Show me a perfect system for arbitrating any game concept, there isn't one. Therefore, since I haven't the time to learn how to model everything in a reasonable and balanced manner, I will fall back on rule 0.

Issue#4 - No list of houserules will be exhaustive. Piggy backing on issue#3, house rules are great patches, but inevitably there will be something that comes up ROH (rules of house), that is not covered. Did you you just find out about drown healing, with no relevant house rule, Oh look your PCs just healed with a bucket of water. Yeah no thanks. I'll just smack that down, since I wasn't dumb enough to get rid of rule zero.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:32 AM
Issue#4 - No list of houserules will be exhaustive. Piggy backing on issue#3, house rules are great patches, but inevitably there will be something that comes up ROH (rules of house), that is not covered. Did you you just find out about drown healing, with no relevant house rule, Oh look your PCs just healed with a bucket of water. Yeah no thanks. I'll just smack that down, since I wasn't dumb enough to get rid of rule zero.

I then chuckle, and ask them to find a way to STOP drowning.

I can play RAW games too.

That said, my players are sufficiently mature that things like healing via drowning would not be tried. The situation will simply not arise, because we are playing cooperatively, not in a hostile fashion, and doing this does not improve the game.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-21, 10:42 AM
However, he has, in a fashion, more rights than the players. He can change the rules or invent new rules, and he is the one shaping the world.

The group chooses its GM. Most of the burden of creating an enjoyable adventure rests on his shoulders and in exchange, he gains limited power.


In my group's more recent gaming activities, the GM is not shaping the world at all. Coming back to Burning Wheel, because it's awesome, PC's have a Circles stat that lets them create NPC's. If they succeed, the NPC is friendly. If they fail, the NPC is hostile (frequently). GM does not make these characters, only plays them according to how the dice fell.

PC's have skills called wises, such as "city-wise" that lets them create facts about the setting. If they succeed the skill test, the fact is as they say. If they fail it, the DM has control and he warps or twists the fact to cause trouble for the character.

Hence, burden is on everyone to create an enjoyable adventure, a fun and interesting world, and a powerful story. GM shares this responsibility, but does not bear it alone. He has a different kind of power than players, but not more power.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-21, 10:44 AM
I then chuckle, and ask them to find a way to STOP drowning.

I can play RAW games too.

That said, my players are sufficiently mature that things like healing via drowning would not be tried. The situation will simply not arise, because we are playing cooperatively, not in a hostile fashion, and doing this does not improve the game.

If you're playing Core-only. Stormwrack allows it with a DC15 Heal check, I think. Yet more evidence that non-core is busted, since it allows broken combos like this.:smallsmile:

Saph
2011-03-21, 10:54 AM
The GM is THE facilitator. Rule0 is a tool for facilitation. You don't take a carpenter's hammer, don't take my Rule0.

This is a pretty good summary.

I also think it's a mistake to believe that RAW is the PCs' protector, while Rule Zero is their enemy. As the DM, if I want to hurt, kill, or generally mess with your character, the rules of the game are not going to stop me. I know literally hundreds of ways to do horrible things to player characters while staying strictly within the rules as written.

A better question is, given that I don't go out of my way to sadistically torture the PCs in normal play with the benefit of Rule Zero, what on earth makes you think that you're going to make yourself any better-protected by getting rid of Rule Zero?

Vladislav
2011-03-21, 10:57 AM
Rule 0 is not the problem. Bad DMs abusing rule 0 are the problem. But guess what, a bad DM isn't suddenly going to become a good DM if rule 0 is revoked.

Jayabalard
2011-03-21, 10:59 AM
As the DM, if I want to hurt, kill, or generally mess with your character, the rules of the game are not going to stop me. This is really the crux of the issue... If you have a GM abusing rule 0, it's not rule 0 that is the problem.

If you need protection from the DM, then you have the wrong DM.


the GM is not shaping the world at all. <snip> If they fail it, the DM has control and he warps or twists the fact to cause trouble for the character.Sounds to me like the latter contradicts the former.

I also find it really likely that the DM is going to have some default facts built into the game... unless you're saying that you literally start off with just the characters in a totally blank slate (floating in nothingness) and then make wise roles to determine every fact... I guess that's possible it sounds like it would take forever to do anything.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-21, 11:06 AM
In that case, to me, Burning Wheel is a system which explicitly calls out rule 0, which other systems don't.
Thee is a whole section in the 3.X DMG about Changing the Rules and houserules. It also talks about, IIRC, about adjudicating actions the game doesn't spell out, like swinging from chandeliers. Mutants and Masterminds also recommends that broken builds be vetoed, even if they are RAW. I don't know about other systems, but explicitly or not, Rule 0 exists, that's why we have a DM, not a computer. I agree that the DM should try to stick to the rules. But sometimes, even if you know the rule, it doesn't work for your groups fun. Hence, the houserule. Or the on the fly rule for things that don't even have rules.

Britter
2011-03-21, 11:07 AM
.

Sounds to me like the latter contradicts the former.

I also find it really likely that the DM is going to have some default facts built into the game... unless you're saying that you literally start off with just the characters in a totally blank slate (floating in nothingness) and then make wise roles to determine every fact... I guess that's possible it sounds like it would take forever to do anything.

Hi. I'm the GM in question.

We did start off with a number of facts and existing setting info, a rough skeleton if you will. I probably put about 60% or so of it together, the rest came from player input.

As far as in-game world development, most of the major changes and developments have come from failed rolls. I do have to intrepret failures, but there are guidlelines within the system we are playing to keep those in line with the players intent. The failure consequences for a roll are usually known, (and explicitly stated) before dice ever hit the table, meaning that the player walks knowingly into the situation, aware of both the success AND failure possibilities and consequences.

I've built less than half the world at this point in that game. It is maybe 40% me, 60% my player, and that is being very generous to me and stingy to him. It might be closer to 70/30.

I do think the GM has a different role than the player. I reject the idea that the GM is somehow "entitled" to have a massive "This happens, because Rule Zero" button. The GM has to put the challenges in front of the player to an extent. That is not Rule Zero, thats running a game.

The system assumption of Burning Wheel is that the GM does set up the initial circumstances of a conflict. But the way things play out, the results, the resolution, that is all decided by the dice. When I challenge my player, I have no interest in trying to forward "my plot" or force a specific conclusion. Instead, I make the character fight for their beliefs, and twist their intentions when they fail. It is a fairly transparent process, with no information being held back by me as the GM. This is where I reject Rule Zero the most. Many people use it to force outcomes condusive to their idea of a plot or story. I say let the dice decide that stuff.

elpollo
2011-03-21, 11:16 AM
We are really not going to get anywhere, because everyone has a different idea of what "Rule 0" means. I've given a shot at trying to decipher what everyone means when they say "Rule 0". Quotation marks mean a direct quotation from this topic, a lack of means I've inferred the meaning. I apologise if I've misunderstood your interpretation, but I've tried to sum up what you've said. Possibly it means more to you than this too, but... yeah, I'm trying to read between the lines here.

I've left you out if I thought you were unclear (basically if I was unsure what exactly you considered "Rule 0" to be).

Firechanter: "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

BRC: "A GM can, at any point, do anything within the game."
"The GM may overrule the rules of the system, or invent their own rules to address situations not addressed by the system. The GM should only invoke Rule 0 in the interest of making the game a more enjoyable experience for all involved."

MorphBark: "Exalted's rule 2"

Doc Roc: "Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect balance."

dsmiles: The GM adjudicating the rules when an issue that's not covered comes up

nyarlathotep: The GM changing rules in play without prior warning

Katana Geldar: The GM adjudicating the rules when an issue that's not covered comes up

Glug: "Rule Zero, as most folks know it, is “If you don’t like the rules don’t use them.” (implied, and sometimes also stated, “and change them”)"
and possibly
"The GM is the authority"

Eldan: "The GM has the liberty to change, ignore, modify and expand - wherever he deems it necessary for the entire group's enjoyment of the game - any the rules of the game as well as the setting, both in advance and properly communicated to the players with all its ramifications, as well as during gameplay."
"The DM makes a decision on something not or not sufficiently covered by the rules."

Saph: GMing in general/ The GM adjudicating the rules when an issue that's not covered comes up

Hecuba: The GM adjudicating the rules when an issue that's not covered or can't be remembered comes up

Serpentine: The GM adjudicating the rules when an issue that's not covered or can't be remembered comes up

Kurald Galain: "The DM uses spells, items, or monsters that aren't found in an official sourcebook, but are of a comparable power level".

Obliged Salmon: "you can't affect the world or story with your character's actions unless the GM is okay with it."

Karoht: The GM adjudicating the rules when an issue that's not covered or can't be remembered comes up

To a lot of people (almost all, it seems) "Rule 0" also covers house rules (which seems wrong, since they are rules in themselves).


*

I'm unsure where "Rule 0" actually comes from - if there's a book that gives a "Rule 0 - you must blah blah blah" section I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to it. To me it's to do with the section on page 18 of the 3.5 DMG, which says:


The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes.

bit of other text, then out of context quotation:


... don't let the players in on this decision.

"Rule 0", to me, is when the GM changes the rules in game without a good reason (saving the plot is not a good reason. Crazy game-breaking balance fixing issues are), and the players don't get a say. A house rule is not "Rule 0" to me as it's already been made a rule - those words that come in those expensive books are guidelines suggested by their creators - they're only rules when the group accepts them as such. Therefore, changing them is not an invocation of "Rule 0" to me, as they haven't been accepted as rules to begin with.

Similarly, adjudicating an unclear issue is not "Rule 0" to me. If the GM says you need jump to reach the rope, a dexterity check to grab it and a balance check to land on the ogres face he's not going outside of the rules, he's merely using the rules to allow you to perform an action not specifically spelled out.

To me, "Rule 0" is a bad thing, and hopefully from my definition you can see why. If a proposed rule change is accepted by the players then it's not "Rule 0" to me anymore - only a house rule.


tl;dr: I'm pretty sure more or less everyone agrees with each other. You're all just confusing your "Rule 0" definitions.



I do this with 4E and D&D, there are some classes that new players are not allowed to play. And you don't make your first character, but these are more house rules than Rule 0. Rule 0 is tool.

Ouch. That sounds tremendously patronising.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 11:18 AM
Rule 0 is not the problem. Bad DMs abusing rule 0 are the problem. But guess what, a bad DM isn't suddenly going to become a good DM if rule 0 is revoked.

Suddenly? No.

Gradually.

Good GMs do not happen by magic. They happen by seeking to improve their GMing, and by practice and learning. Rule Zero is none of these things. In fact, it is a shortcut to avoid these things. Therefore, Rule Zero keeps bad GMs bad.

Edit: Rule Zero is when a GM, in the course of gameplay, creates or changes a rule unilaterally. Done.

If it's in the rules before you start, it's a rule. I don't care if it's published or not. It's part of the rules of the game. It ain't rule zero.

World building is not inherently rule zero. Most systems tell the GM to build the world, and give him tools for doing so. Now, if you suddenly decide that the laws of physics change midway through the game, that's rule zero.

Likewise, Rule Zero has always been acknowledged as a GM tool. It hasn't generally been described as a player tool. Players rule zeroing GM things to not work is...highly unorthodox. Therefore, rule zero only describes GM decisions, not decisions made by the players or by everyone cooperatively.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-21, 11:19 AM
Yar. I think that is the crux of the issue. In our game, nothing important can happen unless the players agree that it is going to happen. Britter can say to me, "so you're going to threaten the mob boss? Well, if you do that, then BAD THING X might happen...is that okay?"

If it's not okay, I can always argue that it's not a fair or realistic consequence. If it's okay by me (as a player), then I as a player have to make my character fight for what he wants (i.e. make an intimidate roll). If he doesn't do that, then he's a ponce, and doesn't deserve it anyway.

Jayabalard
2011-03-21, 11:32 AM
Thee is a whole section in the 3.X DMG about Changing the Rules and houserules. It also talks about, IIRC, about adjudicating actions the game doesn't spell out, like swinging from chandeliers. Mutants and Masterminds also recommends that broken builds be vetoed, even if they are RAW. I don't know about other systems, but explicitly or not, Rule 0 exists, that's why we have a DM, not a computer. I agree that the DM should try to stick to the rules. But sometimes, even if you know the rule, it doesn't work for your groups fun. Hence, the houserule. Or the on the fly rule for things that don't even have rules.I'm pretty sure that GURPS spells it out as well.


The failure consequences for a rol are often known before dice ever hit the table, meaning that the player walks knowingly into the situation, aware of both the success AND failure possibilities. That sounds extremely boring to me, if the player knows exactly how you are going to play a character that appears when he fails a roll... but as long as ya'll are having fun.


I reject the idea that the GM is somehow "entitled" to have a massive "This happens, because Rule Zero" button. The GM has to put the challenges in front of the player to an extent. That is not Rule Zero, thats running a game.I really don't see a difference. In both cases, the gm is using the massive "this happens, because Rule Zero" button.

Anyway, that kind of answers my implied question: the "the GM is not shaping the world at all" part was the false one, which is kind of what I thought. You don't have to be puppeteering the players to be shaping the world, nor do you have to have absolute control over the game world in order to be shaping it.


Suddenly? No.

Gradually.No, it might be suddenly, or gradually... but in either case, it has nothing to do with the existence of rule 0 or lack thereof.


"Rule 0", to me, is when the GM changes the rules in game without a good reasonStricken part isn't necessary.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 11:38 AM
No, it might be suddenly, or gradually... but in either case, it has nothing to do with the existence of rule 0 or lack thereof.

That's merely a contradiction, not an explanation. Care to explain why use of rule zero has nothing to do with learning to be a good GM?

Jayabalard
2011-03-21, 11:44 AM
That's merely a contradiction, not an explanation. Care to explain why use of rule zero has nothing to do with learning to be a good GM?I'm sure what you mean; it doesn't have anything to do with being a good or bad GM, for the same reason that rule 0 doesn't have anything to do with being a good driver, or being a good husband... or anything else. They are not related.

Certainly... that's an assertion. Just like any assertion to the contrary.

Thiyr
2011-03-21, 11:48 AM
Tyndmyr, I'll have to disagree with you on a few points. Obviously, definitions of r0 are different (I personally think that Eldan put it well). As for the growth of a good GM, I see no reason that r0 works against that. GMs grow through, as you said, practice and learning. Part of that process is making mistakes, and figuring out how to fix them. One of my playgroup's better DMs started off quite shaky. I still give him hell over an encounter that wasn't intended to be nearly as hard as it was, because he vastly over-estimated the party's abilities. So he r0'd the game, leaving the one-shotted tank at negatives and bleeding instead of 30 or so points lower, and improved lower stats for the enemy on the fly. Use of rule 0 both solved the problem in the immediate, allowing the game to keep going, and facilitated a lesson he's taken to heart for every game he's run past that point: give the party a session or two to figure out what they're capable of, and tailor encounters from that. Had he not used rule 0, the session would be a lot less fun, and he would have learned nothing (like an earlier example where we TPK'd in a module because he did what the book said, and didn't muck with any details)

Also, I'd like to point out that cooperative decision making can still fit within the purview of rule 0, as the group comes to the consensus, and then must run it past the DM. our group has done that with a few different things, and then run it past the DM after we hammer the details out, and he makes the final call one way or the other. Based on your definition, that'd be hard to do, but if you allow for rules not printed but existing before the game, then such cooperative-rule-0 can exist.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 11:48 AM
I'm sure what you mean; it doesn't have anything to do with being a good or bad GM, for the same reason that rule 0 doesn't have anything to do with being a good driver, or being a good husband... or anything else. They are not related.

Both of those take place in different domains entirely. It is easy to justify driving ability and rule zero use as unrelated.

Rule zero use IS, however, related to the practice of GMing.

Those are not valid analogies. It's as if you were claiming that adherence to proper turn signal use was unrelated to driving skill. That requires an explanation.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-21, 11:50 AM
Learning to be a good DM means learning to use, and use well, all the tools in your tool box, and that includes Rule 0.
Here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8154-Check-for-Traps-Judgment-Day-After-Day) is an article that may be of interest on the subject of Houserules and how it is important, once made, to be consistent with them.

Britter
2011-03-21, 11:50 AM
That sounds extremely boring to me, if the player knows exactly how you are going to play a character that appears when he fails a roll... but as long as ya'll are having fun.

I really don't see a difference. In both cases, the gm is using the massive "this happens, because Rule Zero" button.

Anyway, that kind of answers my implied question: the "the GM is not shaping the world at all" part was the false one, which is kind of what I thought. You don't have to be puppeteering the players to be shaping the world, nor do you have to have absolute control over the game world in order to be shaping it.



Lets just say that I have a different interpretation of what Rule Zero means than you. Let us also agree that the GM does have a lot of narrative control, regardless of model or system. The rest is really details that can only be shown over a lot of conversation and time.

As far as boring play if consequences for failure are known, it has been my experience that play under my current model is far more engaging, exciting, surprising, and all sort of other positive adjectives than it was under my older, traditional model. It is extremely hard to convey over a year of paradigm shift in a forum post, so I can only argue from experience here. A roll doesn't, however, determine how I play a character. It might determine the character's disposition to the player, (which you can argue contradicts my first statement if you want, I can live with it), it might determine the circumstances under which the meeting occurs, etc. Again, this is a complex issue that has taken me about a year to start to wrap my head around.

Regardless, I am in agreement with your "if you are having fun, than good for you" sentiment. There is no proper way to game, presuming the table environment and the game are fun for the participants.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 11:56 AM
Learning to be a good DM means learning to use, and use well, all the tools in your tool box, and that includes Rule 0.
Here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8154-Check-for-Traps-Judgment-Day-After-Day) is an article that may be of interest on the subject of Houserules and how it is important, once made, to be consistent with them.

I would not agree with this. Not all of the tools in your toolbox are equally good or useful. Some tools are sufficiently bad that you're better off houseruling them away.

No, skill as a GM can only be measured in results. Can they reliably craft a fun, satisfying game that the players enjoy? Can they do this for varied groups of players and systems? If you can do this, you're at least a pretty decent GM. If you're doing this, and striving to improve upon it, you're probably a very good GM.

Darth Stabber
2011-03-21, 11:58 AM
I think at it's heart this is a discussion of the implied social contract between GM and players, and what you are (possibly subconsciously) agreeing to when you sit down with your dice.

I believe that when I take my GM seat, that I am responsible for the following:

1) Create a framework for an interesting story that only requires the actions of 1-6 protagonists.

2) Create challenges for those protagonists that are exciting and challenging.

3) I am in charge of all levels of world design until such time as a player develops the initiative to aid me in that task.

Ravens_cry
2011-03-21, 12:00 PM
I would not agree with this. Not all of the tools in your toolbox are equally good or useful. Some tools are sufficiently bad that you're better off houseruling them away.

No, skill as a GM can only be measured in results. Can they reliably craft a fun, satisfying game that the players enjoy? Can they do this for varied groups of players and systems? If you can do this, you're at least a pretty decent GM. If you're doing this, and striving to improve upon it, you're probably a very good GM.
Sometimes using a tool well is not using it at all or rarely. Nothing you said contradicts what I said, we just said it differently. Any craftsperson knows that you don't use one tool if another, better, tool is at hand.

BRC
2011-03-21, 12:05 PM
That's merely a contradiction, not an explanation. Care to explain why use of rule zero has nothing to do with learning to be a good GM?
Use of Rule zero has something to do with learning to be a good GM, specifically, learning to use Rule Zero properly is part of learning to be a good GM.

Alright, think about it this way, what is the purpose of the GM: To make the game fun for all involved. A Good GM runs a fun game, a Bad GM runs a game that is not fun.
If you have a Bad GM, I don't see how taking away Rule 0 puts them on the path to becoming a good GM, unless the specific problem is that they are abusing Rule Zero, and even then making them play without Rule Zero won't necessarily help anything. If they're abusing their power as the GM with Rule Zero, then taking it away just means they'll find ways within the rules to abuse said power.

I can think of two specific situations where removing Rule Zero is the solution.
1: A game where the GM is using Rule Zero to inconsistently arbitrate situations, creating a game where the Players cannot judge the best course of action because they don't know what rules the GM is going to apply at that point. For example, a player tries to quickly get over a low wall, but they don't know if the DM is going to make them use Jump, Climb, or Tumble.
2: A Game where the GM does not know the rules of the system, and is using Rule Zero as a crutch to avoid actually learning the rules. This is different from knowing the rules and deciding to change them, this is the GM being lazy and coming up with Houserules on the fly without bothering to understand the system they are changing.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 12:05 PM
Then suffice it say that I consider Rule Zero to be a poor tool, and one that is subject to more misuse than any other.

It's as if I found a carpenter who used a crank-powered drill. And most of the time, used it for driving nails. I'd tell him to toss it and spring for a drill. Or at least a dremel.

Vladislav
2011-03-21, 12:08 PM
Care to explain why use of rule zero has nothing to do with learning to be a good GM?Because part of being a good GM is to know when to apply Rule 0 and when not.

erikun
2011-03-21, 12:15 PM
"Rule 0", to me, is when the GM changes the rules in game without a good reason ... and the players don't get a say.
So what would we call the GM changing the rules in game with a good reason?

There is also the question of what a "good reason" compromises. Is retaining dramatic tension a good reason? Preventing an unfair situation? Removing silly/illogical situations in the rules? Most GMs I've seen do not suddenly pull a "Rule Zero" because they feel their pride has been wounded - they do so because they think that something important will be lost if they allow that last successful roll. They're frequently wrong, but they aren't doing it without reason.

I'd much rather say "Using GM powers to invalidate choices made by players is bad" as opposed to "Rule Zero is bad, but any good options that could be considered Rule Zero are actually something else." The first gives a clear idea of what is bad and why; the second not as much, because we need to put qualifications on what is 'good' and 'bad' in each case.

BRC
2011-03-21, 12:18 PM
Then suffice it say that I consider Rule Zero to be a poor tool, and one that is subject to more misuse than any other.

It's as if I found a carpenter who used a crank-powered drill. And most of the time, used it for driving nails. I'd tell him to toss it and spring for a drill. Or at least a dremel.
First of all, shouldn't you tell them to get a hammer if they're going to drive nails?

Secondly: What, exactly, do you mean by "Rule Zero is a poor tool". Do you mean it's not the best way to improve gameplay? Are the other methods of improving gameplay incompatible with a good use of Rule Zero?
Is your argument that it's so hard to use properly, that it's safer to simply remove it rather than assume a GM will use it well?


Edit: I feel like adressing this




To me, "Rule 0" is a bad thing, and hopefully from my definition you can see why. If a proposed rule change is accepted by the players then it's not "Rule 0" to me anymore - only a house rule.


tl;dr: I'm pretty sure more or less everyone agrees with each other. You're all just confusing your "Rule 0" definitions.


In your opinion, do only True Scotsmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)use Rule Zero?

Ravens_cry
2011-03-21, 12:23 PM
Then suffice it say that I consider Rule Zero to be a poor tool, and one that is subject to more misuse than any other.

It's as if I found a carpenter who used a crank-powered drill. And most of the time, used it for driving nails. I'd tell him to toss it and spring for a drill. Or at least a dremel.
If you have a carpenter using a crank powered drill for a hammer, then they are not "using the tool well."
And maybe they have a reason they are using a crank drill. Maybe they can't afford an electric drill, which in this analogy could refer to a splatbook, but instead prefer to houserule and homebrew something equivalent due to budgetary constraints or a simple joy of homebrew. Some people like to use the ultimate cordless drill for their own reasons.
Here's a houserule from our group I find has made Barbarians much more playable: Rage extra hit-points are temporary hit-points. No more instant death if the Barbarian goes down for the count. It may or may not work for your group, but it adds to our enjoyment, and that is what the tools, as you said, the DM has are for, to "reliably craft a fun, satisfying game that the players enjoy."

Kurald Galain
2011-03-21, 12:26 PM
Use of Rule zero has something to do with learning to be a good GM, specifically, learning to use Rule Zero properly is part of learning to be a good GM.

Precisely.

Also, I find that the best DMs are those capable of improvising well. Doing so does require rule zero a lot.

elpollo
2011-03-21, 12:29 PM
So what would we call the GM changing the rules in game with a good reason?

I suppose "GMing"? That's kinda my point - we haven't got a clear definition of "Rule 0" and as such we're going to quibble about these things. My definition may be arbitrary, but it's still the definition I have of "Rule 0" until someone gives me an acceptable alternative.


There is also the question of what a "good reason" compromises. Is retaining dramatic tension a good reason? Preventing an unfair situation? Removing silly/illogical situations in the rules? Most GMs I've seen do not suddenly pull a "Rule Zero" because they feel their pride has been wounded - they do so because they think that something important will be lost if they allow that last successful roll. They're frequently wrong, but they aren't doing it without reason.

Ooh, that's a whole other can of worms right there. It depends on the game. So long as the GM says to me before the game "I'd like to run a horror game, I might fudge the odd role or whatever to build tension if that's alright" then I'm fine with it.

Of course, if we run into a stupid situation like drowning/healing then that's when it no longer becomes "Rule 0" for me - as a group we'll sit down (... or stay sat down) and say "This is stupid - let's change it".

Similarly, if a GM puts his hands up and says "I'd like for him to get away, can you let him?" I'd rather be asked than just have it happen. I guess my definition of "Rule 0" is more firmly rooted in the "Don't let the players know" bit I quoted - so long as we can all agree, it's fine.


I'd much rather say "Using GM powers to invalidate choices made by players is bad" as opposed to "Rule Zero is bad, but any good options that could be considered Rule Zero are actually something else." The first gives a clear idea of what is bad and why; the second not as much, because we need to put qualifications on what is 'good' and 'bad' in each case.

I'd certainly agree to that. Blame my biases.


edit -
In your opinion, do only True Scotsmen use Rule Zero?

Heh, basically yeah.

randomhero00
2011-03-21, 12:34 PM
The only real rule, is the rule of cool. In other words, have fun or why bother?

Britter
2011-03-21, 12:37 PM
The only real rule, is the rule of cool. In other words, have fun or why bother?

This statement makes my teeth hurt. Why play a game if you are going to just discard the rules? Assuming the ruleset you are working with is in line with your expectations for the game, the last thing you want to do is just throw them out for arbitrary decisons.

Drascin
2011-03-21, 12:37 PM
Precisely.

Also, I find that the best DMs are those capable of improvising well. Doing so does require rule zero a lot.

Indeed.

I'll not go into the five pages of discussion, but I'll say that personally, as a player, a GM that came to me saying that he's got rid of rule zero wouldn't have had time to finish the sentence before I started running away really fast :smalltongue:.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 12:45 PM
Assertion: There are no good or bad GM's. Only GM's that you like more.

You people have different play-styles (roughly, so far as I can tell, Gamist vs. Narrativist) and are simply not going to agree and are batting around value judgement like they have concrete definitions.

For one of you, adherence to fair and previously set rules is deeply important to your enjoyment of the game.

For the other, flexibility and style.

Stop saying "good" and "best" and "all GM's." Forget semantics arguments about what Rule 0 means, it's rather annoyingly self-centered to assume the way you played the game is the best way and the only standard other should conform to.

So, I'm going to tell you a story.

I got my start GMing at a boffer LARP summer camp for ages six to fourteen. Parties and GM's stayed together for a week-long campaign, characters were persistent parties were not. The rulebooks were a bloody mess and GM's and players with wildly different styles and rules interpretations rotated week after week into new and fun combinations.

I repeat; GMing for ADD six year olds* in a persistent MMLARPG. Where everyone is armed. Consistent rules were important; so was improv. Learning what to apply when for who was far more important than any damn high ideal about how one individual wanted things to go.

I've learned one thing from my time here: everything the internet tells you is wrong. Everything the internet tells you about CharOp Munchkins, DMPC's, Railroading, Chaotic Silly Sandboxing, Drama Queens, PvP, PvE, RAW, RAI, RADMS, Cheap Death, The Other Kind of Cheap Death, Dice Screws Malevolent GM's, all of it is wrong. Internet says it's a bad thing? Nope. It's only bad because you're doin' it wrong.

*Shockingly, often less of a hassle than your Average Joe Gamer. When they turn 16 it's the same spoiled expectations, less respect for reasonable authorities.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 12:46 PM
Because part of being a good GM is to know when to apply Rule 0 and when not.

When should they possibly be used?

I say, you should read through the rulebook, and understand the game before playing. This should eliminate the "I don't know the game" problem. Failure to do this is not really justification for using Rule Zero...at least, not by a good GM. After all, it basically comes down to being unprepared. Good GMs make an effort to be prepared.

If, after preparing for the campaign, the GM realizes that some parts of this system are just not going to work, or he'd like to add a few things, he can write them down as house rules. Writing them down not only makes them much clearer to him, they help ensure his players understand it the same as he does. So long as everyone understands these house rules before play, you've done good. If you're feeling froggy, ask your players for suggestions.

A good GM also makes an effort to know his players and their characters. If he is confused about what their abilities do, he should reread the appropriate sections. Doing so will solve the vast majority of potential rules conflicts before they arise. Note that players should ALSO read these sections, and a GM should encourage this. Players should know how their characters work.

Now, sometimes, despite the best efforts beforehand of all involved, a situation will arise which requires clarification or adjudication in game. Frequently, it will be one person misinterpreting a rule. Sometimes it'll be an unexpected combination. Now, the important thing is that thanks to the other steps, this is EXCEPTIONAL. It does not happen routinely. You then pop open the book and come to an agreement on how to handle it. The exact details of this will vary by group, but the important thing is that it is a "we agree it works this way" not "The DM says it works this way".

You then note that down, and add it to the list of house rules in case it comes up again, thus reducing the chance of future disagreements.

BRC, good clarification. They should get a hammer for driving nails, and a proper drill for making holes. The misused tool can just be tossed, as it has been replaced by better things. In particular, Rule Zero is incredibly broad and general purpose. Broad, general purpose things are not usually as ideal as more specialized tools. It's harder to outline the proper use of something that literally can do anything.

Edit: Also, improv does not require rule zero. An encyclopediac knowledge of the rules also works fantastic. For those without it, a laptop, the SRD, and the search function can substitute most of the time.

nyarlathotep
2011-03-21, 12:46 PM
I would argue there are straight out bad GMs.

Swordguy
2011-03-21, 12:46 PM
This statement makes my teeth hurt. Why play a game if you are going to just discard the rules? Assuming the ruleset you are working with is in line with your expectations for the game, the last thing you want to do is just throw them out for arbitrary decisons.

The rules are guidelines, nothing more. No game designer working in a home office 500 miles away is going to know what is going to be the most satisfying experience for your group. If a rule that he wrote is getting in the way of that satisfying experience, then it is the GMs duty to change the bloody rule. The rules aren't holy writ, or automatically correct or even appropriate just because they're written down in a book you paid for.

It is entirely possible to play a 6-hour roleplaying session with zero written rules whatsoever, as long as all the players and GM trust one another and don't deliberately contradict one another. Rules are simply there to make things go more smoothly.

And, frankly, if I had a player who told me I couldn't Rule 0 in a game, then he'd be shown the door. If you don't want a human GM who can improvise things the rules either don't cover or don't cover to his/yours/the group's satisfaction, then play a computer game.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 12:49 PM
I would argue there are straight out bad GMs.

Sure, there are GM's with overly narrow demographics. Say 'them and their own delusions.'

I'm not saying you should just put up with a game you don't like because it's not really bad. I'm saying you don't need to tell the internet how to play.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 12:51 PM
I would argue there are straight out bad GMs.

Oh, there are. There are also fantastic GMs, and all sorts in between. There's also a number of styles of GMing, and everyone has personal preferences.

As for the idea that GMs as computers are inherently bad, well...lots and lots of people play MMOs. I can't think of a better analogy. Even with GMs playing by straight RAW, you'll still have far more flexibility than in any MMO.

Britter
2011-03-21, 12:55 PM
The rules are guidelines, nothing more. No game designer working in a home office 500 miles away is going to know what is going to be the most satisfying experience for your group. If a rule that he wrote is getting in the way of that satisfying experience, then it is the GMs duty to change the bloody rule. The rules aren't holy writ, or automatically correct or even appropriate just because they're written down in a book you paid for.


I do agree that no designer is going to stop by your house and tell you you are doing it wrong. I disagree that that makes rules guidleines. They are still rules. Now, you are free to discard or change them as you see fit, and again, thats cool, but if you don't want ANY rules, then don't play with any from the get go.



It is entirely possible to play a 6-hour roleplaying session with zero written rules whatsoever, as long as all the players and GM trust one another and don't deliberately contradict one another. Rules are simply there to make things go more smoothly.


This absolutely works for certain types of games and certain tables. It doesn't appeal to me, but that doesn't make it wrong.



And, frankly, if I had a player who told me I couldn't Rule 0 in a game, then he'd be shown the door. If you don't want a human GM who can improvise things the rules either don't cover or don't cover to his/yours/the group's satisfaction, then play a computer game.

And I agree, no one should tell you what you can and can't do at your table, presuming you and your group are having fun.

I think that your equating "Rule Zero is a stopgap measure for poorly designed systems" directly to not wanting a GM capable of improvising is a bit of a falicy. I totally agree that the GM needs to be able to improvise. I do not think the GM should be able to change or adjust the rules of the game at will, on the fly, to achieve his particular ends and minimize player input. You can challenge and engage players without Rule Zero.

Morph Bark
2011-03-21, 12:55 PM
As for the idea that GMs as computers are inherently bad, well...lots and lots of people play MMOs. I can't think of a better analogy. Even with GMs playing by straight RAW, you'll still have far more flexibility than in any MMO.

I kind of wanted to add "unless you play 4E", but then figured that, really, with a good DM/GM/ST it does not matter what system you're playing.

I have found though, that usually GMs and players can either try to pull each other up to their level, or pull each other down. Before things can change, you need the right attitude. If things don't go well even then, then something is wrong.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 01:03 PM
Oh yeah. Getting a solid group together is always the best part.

With a sufficiently bad group, it won't matter what rules you use, it'll still be terrible.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 01:08 PM
I do agree that no designer is going to stop by your house and tell you you are doing it wrong. I disagree that that makes rules guidleines. They are still rules. Now, you are free to discard or change them as you see fit, and again, thats cool, but if you don't want ANY rules, then don't play with any from the get go.

There's a term for a rule that's, like, flexible, so you can change it to suit the situation, but in that space between ironclad and no rules at all... Wait, it'll come to me.



This absolutely works for certain types of games and certain tables. It doesn't appeal to me, but that doesn't make it wrong.

And I agree, no one should tell you what you can and can't do at your table, presuming you and your group are having fun.

This...


I think that your equating "Rule Zero is a stopgap measure for poorly designed systems" directly to not wanting a GM capable of improvising is a bit of a falicy. I totally agree that the GM needs to be able to improvise. I do not think the GM should be able to change or adjust the rules of the game at will, on the fly, to achieve his particular ends and minimize player input. You can challenge and engage players without Rule Zero.

Conflicts with the bolded area. It's semantics but semantics are important. 'I have less fun when...'

Anyway, yes, challenge and engagement can be had without whatever definition of Rule Zero we're running with at the moment. I would question whether it should come purely from that. Challenge and engagement should be the end goal and the steps along the way largely irrelevant.

Some interesting notes:

I think both sides are shadow boxing a bit here. It's 'seeing the moon is rule 0' vs. 'Gm's not playing by the rules killed my character so he could railroad us.'

Also, I'm seeing a breakdown of GM's vs. Players. The GM side is showing Narrativist/Simulationist tendencies and coming off a bit tyrannical and entitled (a certain degree of entitlement, as host, may be called for of course), the Player side is a bit Gamist, fighting a perception of petulant Munchkin who got his toys taken away, and see the GM as a player-equivalent capable of being unfair. There's a push on their part against on the fly or previously undisclosed house rule.

Kurald Galain
2011-03-21, 01:10 PM
Assertion: There are no good or bad GM's. Only GM's that you like more.
No. Just because something has a subjective factor doesn't mean there aren't good and bad ones. For example, there are good and bad RPGs, as evidenced by their sales figures and the average reaction they get on the internet. D&D is a good RPG, even though not everybody likes it. FATAL is a bad RPG, even though at least one person in the world does like it.

The Rose Dragon
2011-03-21, 01:13 PM
No. Just because something has a subjective factor doesn't mean there aren't good and bad ones. For example, there are good and bad RPGs, as evidenced by their sales figures and the average reaction they get on the internet. D&D is a good RPG, even though not everybody likes it. FATAL is a bad RPG, even though at least one person in the world does like it.

Popularity does not equal quality, however, and sales figures and online reactions determine only popularity (OK, the latter might determine quality a little).

Britter
2011-03-21, 01:16 PM
Let me try to clarify.

As the GM, I need to improvise to add characters, challenges, setting elements, etc to the game. Gotta do it. I don't see that as Rule Zero, as there is no rules for doing these things normally anyway. At least, none that I am aware of.

As the GM, I believe that the rules should be applied consistnetly. I should not be allowed to improvise the rules. They are, though perhaps not sacrosanct, at least a little more set in stone.

And, in case I have forgotten to call it out specificly. I am stating my ideas and preferences as opinion only. They are, of course, not facts...they are just my opinions. There is no universal answer, or single right way to game. I will argue for my opinions, because I feel they have merit (and debate with people who hold different views has helped me understand my own better), but if I play at someone else table, I will (and do. I play at a table that is very different from my own right now, and I shut my mouth and have a good time) play their way. If I don't have fun, I will bow out politely. Not every game will appeal to every person. There is no badwrongfun in gaming, as long as the people around the table are having fun.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 01:17 PM
Popularity does not equal quality, however, and sales figures and online reactions determine only popularity (OK, the latter might determine quality a little).

While I agree with this, I still generally agree with his conclusion that games have varying quality, and that D&D has a lot more of it than FATAL.

A good test would be playtesting. If the random people what playtest your game love it and keep playing it, your game is at least decent. If it also is easy to run, since it has well laid out, consistent rules, it's probably quite good.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 01:24 PM
While I agree with this, I still generally agree with his conclusion that games have varying quality, and that D&D has a lot more of it than FATAL.

A good test would be playtesting. If the random people what playtest your game love it and keep playing it, your game is at least decent. If it also is easy to run, since it has well laid out, consistent rules, it's probably quite good.

If we're talking truly random samples of the population they'll probably look at the dice funny and then find something meaningful to do with their life, like be employed. Everything else is down to demographics, which can get very narrow or be fairly broad.

Again, I got my start playing and later GMing mess of a bastardized system based around foam swords and rock-paper-scissors. It was broke eight ways to hell, woefully inconsistent, and clunky as hell.

I'd rather play that with (or even as) the most mediocre of mediocre GM's than play the best system with a bad one. (Herein bad and mediocre representing personal tastes.)

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 01:28 PM
If we're talking truly random samples of the population they'll probably look at the dice funny and then find something meaningful to do with their life, like be employed. Everything else is down to demographics, which can get very narrow or be fairly broad.)

Actually, having done this, once the beer and pizza arrived, people were quite happy to play D&D regardless of normal occupational preferences. It's not a terribly hard game, taught well.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-21, 01:32 PM
Also, I'm seeing a breakdown of GM's vs. Players. The GM side is showing Narrativist/Simulationist tendencies and coming off a bit tyrannical and entitled (a certain degree of entitlement, as host, may be called for of course), the Player side is a bit Gamist, fighting a perception of petulant Munchkin who got his toys taken away, and see the GM as a player-equivalent capable of being unfair. There's a push on their part against on the fly or previously undisclosed house rule.

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

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

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

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

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 01:34 PM
Actually, having done this, once the beer and pizza arrived, people were quite happy to play D&D regardless of normal occupational preferences. It's not a terribly hard game, taught well.

Yup. I too have done this. The hard part is getting them to give it a shot to start with. Once you've done that, the rest is easy. The only thing it has as an obstacle is the social stigma of being nerdy, and frankly, that's not as big of a deal as many make it out to be.

I don't really identify as a GM or as a player more...I do both roughly equally. Both are fun, but in different ways.

Narren
2011-03-21, 01:48 PM
As the GM, I believe that the rules should be applied consistnetly. I should not be allowed to improvise the rules. They are, though perhaps not sacrosanct, at least a little more set in stone.



I think there is a big difference between applying rules consistently and being allowed to improvise. If my DM (or GM) arbitrarily changed the rules on me "just because" then he would be abusing Rule 0. However, any good DM needs to be able to improvise rules on the spot. Players get creative, and it's impossible for ANY system to be able to predict and cover absolutely everything that someone might think of. And the more rules that are in place to cover situations, the more wonky things can become. Most of the early jokes in OotS were about this very topic. This doesn't make a game system "inherently flawed", just imperfect. And I don't believe that there is a single system out there that is, or even could be, perfect while still having an actual rule set.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 01:52 PM
I think there is a big difference between applying rules consistently and being allowed to improvise.

Now, let's make a distinction here...not all improvisation is rules changing.

I can apply the rules consistently, and still come up with new adventures on the fly. The fact that I spontaneously came up with the idea of a cavern full of gnolls is not rule zero. If I decide gnolls suddenly have a weakness to the color yellow, it is.


If my DM (or GM) arbitrarily changed the rules on me "just because" then he would be abusing Rule 0. However, any good DM needs to be able to improvise rules on the spot. Players get creative, and it's impossible for ANY system to be able to predict and cover absolutely everything that someone might think of. And the more rules that are in place to cover situations, the more wonky things can become. Most of the early jokes in OotS were about this very topic. This doesn't make a game system "inherently flawed", just imperfect. And I don't believe that there is a single system out there that is, or even could be, perfect will still having a solid rule set.

So, point out that the rule is fairly wonky. Point out that anything the players can do, you can do too. Figure out a way with the players that makes the most sense to all of you. This is a great way to add houserules.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 01:56 PM
Inversely, I'd rather just let any "awsome" thing a player tries to do, just correspond to an analogous skill check. Wanna swing across a chandelier and boot something in the face? You can say that, but it'll redux down to a jump check and a charge on the ogre. There's no reason most "cool" things people want to try need seperate rules when 99% of the time, it's fluff tacked on to something else.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 02:00 PM
Inversely, I'd rather just let any "awsome" thing a player tries to do, just correspond to an analogous skill check. Wanna swing across a chandelier and boot something in the face? You can say that, but it'll redux down to a jump check and a charge on the ogre. There's no reason most "cool" things people want to try need seperate rules when 99% of the time, it's fluff tacked on to something else.

That's not so much a rules zero thing as a rules light/rules heavy thing.

And in most games, flavor text on the part of players is encouraged, and GMs are not generally told to penalize the players in the form of additional checks/disallowing actions for doing that.

randomhero00
2011-03-21, 02:42 PM
This statement makes my teeth hurt. Why play a game if you are going to just discard the rules? Assuming the ruleset you are working with is in line with your expectations for the game, the last thing you want to do is just throw them out for arbitrary decisons.

Guess what? Most of the time you are not "succeeding" with skill in anything to do with DnD. Most agree its unbalanced. Also rules are for lawyers, I just like to have fun.

EDIT I'm in it for the roleplay and storytelling. Not the dice rolling.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 02:54 PM
Guess what? Most of the time you are not "succeeding" with skill in anything to do with DnD. Most agree its unbalanced. Also rules are for lawyers, I just like to have fun.

EDIT I'm in it for the roleplay and storytelling. Not the dice rolling.

If you don't want rules, why bother with a rules system in the first place?

Freeform exists for a reason. If you want roleplaying, storytelling, and not dice rolling or rules, that seems a lot more logical than say, D&D.

Britter
2011-03-21, 02:58 PM
Tyndmyr's last two or three comments are a much more acurate way of stating some of my points than I have managed so far in this thread.

Zhalath
2011-03-21, 02:59 PM
As a DM, I prescribe to Rule Zero, that I have license to tweak things as I see fit. If it becomes an issue of player vs plot, I'll alter plot, because it's easier. Most alterations I make are behind the scenes and don't affect the players much, and when they do, they benefit (I drop DR from enemies, give them less HP, give them a fitting weakness).
My players see me as a fair arbitrator that's willing to stick up for them against the rules. For me, the rules may be set in stone, but I can cast stone shape.

randomhero00
2011-03-21, 03:04 PM
If you don't want rules, why bother with a rules system in the first place?

Freeform exists for a reason. If you want roleplaying, storytelling, and not dice rolling or rules, that seems a lot more logical than say, D&D.

I wouldn't mind trying freeform. But know no one in my area.

But anyways, so that the average times...when its not super important to hit the enemy, so average enemies, we have rules for.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 04:40 PM
"Rule 0", to me, is when the GM changes the rules in game without a good reason (saving the plot is not a good reason. Crazy game-breaking balance fixing issues are), and the players don't get a say. A house rule is not "Rule 0" to me as it's already been made a rule - those words that come in those expensive books are guidelines suggested by their creators - they're only rules when the group accepts them as such. Therefore, changing them is not an invocation of "Rule 0" to me, as they haven't been accepted as rules to begin with.

Similarly, adjudicating an unclear issue is not "Rule 0" to me. If the GM says you need jump to reach the rope, a dexterity check to grab it and a balance check to land on the ogres face he's not going outside of the rules, he's merely using the rules to allow you to perform an action not specifically spelled out.



Clarification: rule zero is not using the rules to make a call on something not covered. It is the rule that says the GM is allowed to make that call, as well as the rule that says the GM can make house rules. The house rule itself is of course it's own rule.

The Big Dice
2011-03-21, 04:46 PM
<Words of Wisdom>
The so-called Rule 0 is absolutely fundamental to the playing of Roleplaying Games. If you take it away, yo're really saying that players are entitled to everything they want and GMs are simply there to provide it.

This is probably not a good situation to push when you're in a gaming group.

However, this is where I'm going to make a wild guess about people's gaming backgrounds.

I'm willing to give reasonable odds that the majority of people who are proponents of Rule 0 are 'old school' gamers. That is, they learned the ropes of roleplaying with systems like Red Box D&D or AD&D. Possibly games like Pendragon, Bushido, Traveller and boxed editions of Call of Cthulhu are on that list. Basically, games that didn't tell you everything. Games that gave you a combat system, a means for characters to gain experience and not much else.

In other words, games that relied on rulings rather than rules.

When you don't have rules for everything, then you tend to be put in a position where you have to improvise, ad lib and generally think on your feet a lot more. This, I feel, encourages a Gm to develop those skills. In other words, it encourages you by the simple lack of rules on things to excercise Rule 0 on a regular basis.

This in turn means that the less experienced GM is put in a situation where it's sink or swim. Learn or let someone else take over. And that leads to people who know how to apply Rule 0 properly.

Newer games don't tend to encourage that sort of freeform gaming. They are more likely (not always, but often) to have detailed subsystems that cover most common and several less common situations. In other words, they encourage playing by the rules, rather than the GM having to make a ruling.

This is pure speculation on my behalf, but just out of curiosity, how many people in favour of Rule 0 started off with an RPG that had art by Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley or Clyde Caldwell in there somewhere?

And if anyone tries to drag GNS into this, I'm going to come to their house and do this (http://www.youtube.com/user/PrankvsPrank#p/u/20/D2KUjadgZBs) to them :smalltongue:

ericgrau
2011-03-21, 04:48 PM
I believe I've seen a quotation where Gary Gygax is afraid that 3rd edition has so many rules for everything that it could turn into a rule's lawyers dream. Enforcing such as a "right" would be a nightmare.

If you don't like your DM then talk to him or have the group talk to him or find someone else, but inviting rules arguments instead of giving the DM the final say is a sure way to horribly delayed and un-immersive gaming sessions. I have seen DMs surprise change the rules arbitrarily from time to time and it's annoying but tolerable. I've seen people argue over every rules detail, delay games heavily, spend all their time power-gaming instead of anything else, and it is 10 times worse. No... just no. Don't do it. Bring it up after the session is over if it's serious and then fix it. This is the kind of thing that destroys D&D at the very heart.

Jay R
2011-03-21, 04:53 PM
Sometimes Rule Zero is invoked because the player doesn't know something, and the DM won't tell him because the character doesn't know it.

I was in a game once in which a party was resurrected, only to discover that none of their magic items worked any more. The players argued strenuously, complaining that that was an unfair DM fiat, unjustified by the rules. Finally the DM said, "That's what happened, and no, I won't give you an explanation."

The DM had to do that to avoid having a player revolt, or telling them that the only PC who hadn't been there found the bodies, stole their magic items, and left behind identical non-working copies.

"Rule Zero", applied correctly, means that the DM doesn't have to explain things that the characters have no right to know. (My character just had to be careful not to use those items in front of them.)

Infernalbargain
2011-03-21, 04:54 PM
When should they possibly be used?

When RAW doesn't work. RAW says you can't see the moon because of the massive distance modifier. RAW says you need to make DC 10 listen to understand what the party's telling you in a normal conversation, DC 11 if you're on the opposite side of a bedroom. RAW apparently says you can heal yourself by drowning.

When a player goes pun-pun (or similar). Yeah, it is completely RAW, that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

Anytime when the rules can't make things work. You need a method of traveling back in time for your plot? Good luck finding it in the rules. BBEG needs a way to destroy a plane? Good luck finding that.

When rules-lawyering just takes too long. One example is Contact other Plane vs. Mind Blank. Two several hundred post threads were had on the Paizo forums debating this issue. A debate like that will easily take up an entire gaming session without being resolved. The GM needs to keep the game moving. They simply need to make a temporary call in the interests of the game. How things actually work can be sorted out between sessions.

Eldan
2011-03-21, 04:57 PM
This is pure speculation on my behalf, but just out of curiosity, how many people in favour of Rule 0 started off with an RPG that had art by Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley or Clyde Caldwell in there somewhere?


I started with 3.0 about 7 or 8 years ago, then soon switched to 3.5. I've read a lot of AD&D books, but for the fluff, not the rules, which I never bothered to learn. I've since then also played and GMed an old edition of Gamma World, played but not GMed d20modern, FATE and Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition and just read, but not played Vampire: the Masquerade, Exalted 2nd edition and a handful of free RPGs from the internet.

And I'm very much pro rule 0.

The most important thing during the game is the flow. The game has to run as much without interruption as possible: books, laptops and phones are banned from the table, the only things allowed on it are pens, paper, character sheets and dice. Turns are to be planned as quickly as possible, and rules should not be argued for more than two sentences.

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 04:57 PM
Guess what? Most of the time you are not "succeeding" with skill in anything to do with DnD. Most agree its unbalanced. Also rules are for lawyers, I just like to have fun.

EDIT: I'm in it for the roleplay and storytelling. Not the dice rolling.

This drives me insane. If you have to separate the two, you have a crappy system.

Jay R
2011-03-21, 04:59 PM
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but this is flat wrong.


The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else.

The DM is not a player; he (or she) is the referee. A lot of problems develop when the DM starts identifying with the NPCs and thinks of himself as a player.

A player is someone striving for a specific outcome, and using all his resources to that end. The DM must rule fairly on what happens, and so cannot be a player, for the same reason that a tennis player can't rule on whether her serve was out of bounds.

World Eater
2011-03-21, 05:10 PM
Rule Zero is what separates the roleplaying games from the board games.

Kaun
2011-03-21, 05:18 PM
It seems to me that a lot of the poster that are against rule "0" seem to want heap a hell of a lot of responsability on their GM. They all so seem to have a very its us vs the GM mentality.

I feel sorry for players and GM's in games like this.

I cant imagine it to be much fun.

My players have never complained about Rule 0, probably because my main goal with running a game is that everybody enjoys themselfs. If rule 0 really is ruining games for people it probably isn't the main cause for the problems just the most obvious.

Dralnu
2011-03-21, 05:27 PM
In my opinion, the DM's job is to make sure that the players are having fun. The DM can do whatever he wants in order to ensure that goal is met.

I have fudged the rules many times as a DM. I made up NPCs with strange powers on the spot and only later actually made stats for them to explain their abilities. I spontaneously added different spells to a high level wizard's arsenal mid-fight because it made the fight cooler and it would make sense for the wizard to be prepared with such things. I let the party's warblade jump, run up a stalagmite, and kick off it so he could reach the grell floating up near the cave ceiling and perform his mithril tornado maneuver, eviscerating them in the air, all by making two jump checks with made up DCs because who the heck knew what the proper DCs would be for that, and I gave him a +2 untyped "awesome" bonus for even thinking of performing something so badass.

Do I cheat? Yes, yes I do. But I'm sure my players appreciate it.

Jayabalard
2011-03-21, 05:42 PM
If you don't want rules, why bother with a rules system in the first place?Lots of reasons; a couple off the top of my head:

Perhaps they like rules for some things and not others (combat vs puzzles vs social encounters)
Perhaps they like rules, but don't want to be bothered with learning a lot of them.
Perhaps they like some randomness but generally prefer a consistent narrative.
Perhaps they find it easier to get people to "come over to play a D&D with a GM that doesn't pay much attention to the rules" than to "get together at bills house and play make believe"



Clarification: rule zero is not JUST using the rules to make a call on something not covered. It is the rule that says the GM is allowed to make that call, as well as the rule that says the GM can make house rules. The house rule itself is of course it's own rule.I think you left out a "just" there...


This drives me insane. If you have to separate the two, you have a crappy system.three. Roleplay; Storytelling; Dice rolling.

And there's nothing wrong with having the RP and storytelling totally divorced from any dice rolling; that certainly does not make it a "crappy system"

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 05:59 PM
It seems to me that a lot of the poster that are against rule "0" seem to want heap a hell of a lot of responsability on their GM. They all so seem to have a very its us vs the GM mentality.

TBH, it's what I run in my campaigns, and all it requires is rules knowledge. For example, don't run the setting in planescape.

Mulletmanalive
2011-03-21, 06:10 PM
I find this argument mildly amusing, not because of the content [I think being unable to run a plot because the rules are unhelpful is stupid, but that's your outlook] but the examples sited.

Burning Wheel, last I checked, has something that's exactly like the D&D rule zero. As does every system that has Fate points or the like.

FATE says it clearest; "if something needs to happen for the plot to go forward, it happens. Simply say to your players "so and so happens and you are captured. This is the villain's monologue. For being good sports about this, have a Fate point!""

This Sentiment is found in most games, though there isn't necessarily a buyoff for cooperation. Burning Wheel is also helped by the fact that it's entirely up to the GM whether you die or not, which is not the case in most other games.

Narren
2011-03-21, 06:10 PM
Now, let's make a distinction here...not all improvisation is rules changing.

I can apply the rules consistently, and still come up with new adventures on the fly. The fact that I spontaneously came up with the idea of a cavern full of gnolls is not rule zero. If I decide gnolls suddenly have a weakness to the color yellow, it is.


Of course it's silly when you use a silly example. The game is silly enough RAW, you don't need Rule 0 for that.

What if I make a family that is cursed, and every first born child changes into a troll or something for one night every year and causes mayhem, and the curse can only be broken by killing the descendants of the one who curse them (who are. Or what if I want to make a new monster/race/class entirely, but I don't necessarily want my players knowing all the details until they discover them in-game? That's all Rule 0, as none of it is RAW or even mentioned in the rules (as far as I know).

Those aren't the best examples, but I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment.


So, point out that the rule is fairly wonky. Point out that anything the players can do, you can do too. Figure out a way with the players that makes the most sense to all of you. This is a great way to add houserules.

House rules ARE Rule 0.

Haarkla
2011-03-21, 06:12 PM
Regardless of what the true definition of Rule 0 is, it represents something I don't like. Namely, that whatever the GM wants in the game is more important than what the players want. Not PC's, players.

Players want their PC's to be challenged, to suffer, and finally to overcome adversity to achieve remarkable things. Players want to engage in interesting conflicts.
I tend to find my players are more easily able to achive these things when I have the maximum possible flexibility GMing, and can rule things on the fly, rather than waste time consulting things in a rule book.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 06:24 PM
House rules ARE Rule 0.

I think we're gonna need to start working on that common ground of definitions here.

I think some house rules invoke rule 0, but in cases where they are all laid out before the game starts, before the characters are made and allow for players to say "Huh, this game is going to suck, I'm going to go play mech-warrior" I would argue you aren't really invoking rule 0.

Narren
2011-03-21, 06:42 PM
I think we're gonna need to start working on that common ground of definitions here.

I think some house rules invoke rule 0, but in cases where they are all laid out before the game starts, before the characters are made and allow for players to say "Huh, this game is going to suck, I'm going to go play mech-warrior" I would argue you aren't really invoking rule 0.

Really, all house rules invoke rule 0. The DM is changing the rules. Sure, the players agree, but it's still the DM's call. The difference is, a good DM will compromise if the players aren't happy with house rules, and a bad one will say "too bad, I'm the DM."

What happens when a situation comes up in the middle of play that the players and DM never thought of? Sometimes, Rule 0 is necessary to facilitate a smooth game. As a player and as a DM, I've never seen a system get everything perfect, and I've never found all of those imperfections BEFORE playing the game. Sometimes a DM just has to wing it, and still try to make everyone happy.

Honestly, if I don't trust my DM to use Rule 0 to make my game experience better, I don't trust him as a DM. He doesn't need Rule 0 to run a bad game, he can do that RAW.

jseah
2011-03-21, 06:48 PM
Three. Roleplay; Storytelling; Dice rolling.

And there's nothing wrong with having the RP and storytelling totally divorced from any dice rolling; that certainly does not make it a "crappy system"
A number of dicerolling things will affect the other two.

Knowing what things you can do, spells you can cast, equipment you need affects where you can go in the world. You do not walk into a red dragon's lair without some fire protection.
Dicerolls affect story. Little kids are not pitted against archdemons.

Similarly, some stuff cannot be done in the rules. To bring up an example mentioned earlier, the jump check for jumping onto a staglamite and off it into thin air in order to hit an airborne enemy with a melee attack. That can be worked out (jump rules should have rules for height and distance desired), and whether the rules put it in feasible range for the fighter involved dictates whether you are going to try or not.
Dicerolls affect roleplaying.

137beth
2011-03-21, 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
So, point out that the rule is fairly wonky. Point out that anything the players can do, you can do too. Figure out a way with the players that makes the most sense to all of you. This is a great way to add houserules.

House rules ARE Rule 0.





I think we're gonna need to start working on that common ground of definitions here.

I think some house rules invoke rule 0, but in cases where they are all laid out before the game starts, before the characters are made and allow for players to say "Huh, this game is going to suck, I'm going to go play mech-warrior" I would argue you aren't really invoking rule 0.

"A great way to add house rules" mentioned above relies on creating NPCs with the overpowered abilities...AFTER characters are made, so even by your definition that is still invoking rule 0.

Really, changing the rules is what rule 0 is. The question is "do I invoke rule 0 early in the game, or late in the game?" The answer: use rule 0 whenever it helps make the game more fun.

As said earlier, if you can't use rule 0 properly, you aren't a good GM/DM.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 08:24 PM
"A great way to add house rules" mentioned above relies on creating NPCs with the overpowered abilities...AFTER characters are made, so even by your definition that is still invoking rule 0.

TBH, I don't like it when DMs have to resort to that either. There's really nothing that's impossible within the rules. Above/below CR certainly, but there is nothing that outright states you can't pit the party against an over CRed encounter.


Really, changing the rules is what rule 0 is. The question is "do I invoke rule 0 early in the game, or late in the game?" The answer: use rule 0 whenever it helps make the game more fun.

I just can't bring myself to thinking that it's ever useful, even if you argue that certain "fun" things are impossible according to the rules. Certainly the group I play with has never tried anything I wasn't able to organize into the rules of the game, nor have I ever started with the fluff of an encounter, and decided I needed to homebrew something.

Hecuba
2011-03-21, 09:12 PM
The DM is not a player; he (or she) is the referee. A lot of problems develop when the DM starts identifying with the NPCs and thinks of himself as a player.

A player is someone striving for a specific outcome, and using all his resources to that end. The DM must rule fairly on what happens, and so cannot be a player, for the same reason that a tennis player can't rule on whether her serve was out of bounds.

I'll agree with this one. Fundamentally, rule 0 is saying "The GM's job is to run the game, and and therefore is entitled to do what he judges necessary to keep it running. In pursuit of this, his judgment is the final arbiter for that given game."

Many of the issues people seem to be pointing out that there are GM's bad enough that you don't trust their judgment. That seems like a good reason not to seek them out as a GM.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 09:17 PM
Of course it's silly when you use a silly example. The game is silly enough RAW, you don't need Rule 0 for that.

What if I make a family that is cursed, and every first born child changes into a troll or something for one night every year and causes mayhem, and the curse can only be broken by killing the descendants of the one who curse them (who are.

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

That's probably why it doesn't exist as such. Oh, lycanthropy exists, but the idea that you can fix evil by killing people who didn't commit the evil is not a part of D&D for a reason.

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


Or what if I want to make a new monster/race/class entirely, but I don't necessarily want my players knowing all the details until they discover them in-game? That's all Rule 0, as none of it is RAW or even mentioned in the rules (as far as I know).

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

If your players can automatically figure all that out right off, they're looking at your notes.

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


Edit: And as for all house rules being rule zero, you skipped over half the post. Rule zero is a DM tool, not a player tool. Players can't use it. A house rule made by everyone together is therefore not rule zero.

Edit #2:


When RAW doesn't work. RAW says you can't see the moon because of the massive distance modifier.

Feel free to review the spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm) rules and tell me how the moon is a creature.


RAW says you need to make DC 10 listen to understand what the party's telling you in a normal conversation, DC 11 if you're on the opposite side of a bedroom.

That's funny. The SRD Listen skill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm) says talking is DC 0.


RAW apparently says you can heal yourself by drowning.

If you use core only, then yes, technically, since it sets your hp to 0, then it can situationally be used to heal from negatives. Of course, if you carefully read the description of unconcious, you'll see it also applies to -1 to -9 hp. So...not really a thing. Enjoy. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm)


When a player goes pun-pun (or similar). Yeah, it is completely RAW, that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

No. It is not completely RAW. If there is no Sarrukk in your world, there is no way to go pun-pun. Sarrukks don't even exist in any world except for forgotten realms by default.


Anytime when the rules can't make things work. You need a method of traveling back in time for your plot? Good luck finding it in the rules.

It's published in a web supplement. I'm too lazy to google at the moment, but it requires spell components that are basically made of plotanium. It handles time travel to even the quite distant past.


BBEG needs a way to destroy a plane? Good luck finding that.

Epic magic solves all. The possible ways to pull this off are...extremely numerous. Some of them don't even require epic magic at all, depending on your tolerance for levels of optimization. Step one: Find a DFA who only wants to use his breath once for the rest of all time...

This, if anything, strengthens my opinion that people that love rule zero are not fans of reading the rules.

true_shinken
2011-03-21, 09:22 PM
Rule 0 either means the game designers need to know their game better, or that the DM needs to know the rules of the game better.
Rule 0 means a DM doesn't need to read minds and see the future.
Say you have a wizard bad guy. He has a list of spells prepared. Suddenly, the players come up with an obvious plan that could be avoided with a single low-level spell. Do you fudge it so that the high Int wizard has the spell readied or do you make it seem like he is not as smart as he should be by not having it? You the DM does not have Int 22.
Say you rolled a random encounter and didn't have time to check up the creatures stats. Say he is vulnerable to fire. You move him near the guy with the flaming sword and he goes 'omg, he is so busted! this dude is so dumb to attack me!'. Shouldn't you say 'sorry, guys, I made a mistake, I don't have all books memorized, let me reposition him as this action does not make any sense'?
This is what rule 0 is about. If you are a DM who memorized all the rules and makes no mistakes, congratulations. You work better than a videogame, because even in videogames there are mistakes.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 09:34 PM
You the DM does not have Int 22.

I beg to differ.

My Intellect is as representative of the NPCs int 22 as my player's intellect is as representative of HIS characters stats. He probably doesn't have a wis 22 in real life either.

We both play with what we got.


This is pure speculation on my behalf, but just out of curiosity, how many people in favour of Rule 0 started off with an RPG that had art by Larry Elmore, Jeff Easley or Clyde Caldwell in there somewhere?

Sorry. Started in early second ed, with a batch of gamers that were still griping about the new system. It was extensively house ruled. I then played a lot of near-freeform, where the GM had essentially no rules, and made arbitrations based solely on what people said. I'm probably one of the more strongly anti-rule zero types, too, despite having played under a lot of it. Perhaps because of that, actually.

I do agree with you on GNS though. It needs to be lit on fire.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 09:38 PM
Rule 0 means a DM doesn't need to read minds and see the future.
Say you have a wizard bad guy. He has a list of spells prepared. Suddenly, the players come up with an obvious plan that could be avoided with a single low-level spell. Do you fudge it so that the high Int wizard has the spell readied or do you make it seem like he is not as smart as he should be by not having it? You the DM does not have Int 22.
Say you rolled a random encounter and didn't have time to check up the creatures stats. Say he is vulnerable to fire. You move him near the guy with the flaming sword and he goes 'omg, he is so busted! this dude is so dumb to attack me!'. Shouldn't you say 'sorry, guys, I made a mistake, I don't have all books memorized, let me reposition him as this action does not make any sense'?
This is what rule 0 is about. If you are a DM who memorized all the rules and makes no mistakes, congratulations. You work better than a videogame, because even in videogames there are mistakes.

Not every encounter you run needs to be epic, not everything has to go according to your plans, and if you screw up, there's no reason to not just run with it and get to the next encounter. If that wizard is gimped by your lack of knowledge of your party's character sheets, then let him be gimped with it. You shouldn't be invested in that NPCs survival, and you can always recycle it later on changing what you learned.

The exception is big, story arch ending final bosses who the party has been trying to get to the entire game, when you're trying to thwart the party in one last climactic battle. Do you honestly think in this one situation, where the battle has to be epic, that you can get away with the excuse of "I hadn't considered the obvious counter"? Big, pivotal battles that are meant to be the climax of the campaign can't get away with the excuse that you halfassed it.

And say you roll a cryohydra or something as a random encounter, and you screw up its tactics because the fire sword guy is right next to it. So what? It's a random encounter. It adds nothing to the story, will be killed then forgotten and discarded amongst the frosty mire it arose from as quickly and forgetably as it came. There is literally no need in this case, of dragging out a pointless EXP grind obstacle in the road that the players could just teleport past by arguing that the party is trivializing it.

My point here is, mistakes happen, but you don't have to try shoving all these patches on them to try to make them work. In three months, players will remember the encounter based on how they performed, not based on the random encounter's ability to last 5 rounds instead of 3.

Thufir
2011-03-21, 09:51 PM
This, if anything, strengthens my opinion that people that love rule zero are not fans of reading the rules.

And what if, say, the DM in question is not familiar with every single rule that has ever been published anywhere, and doesn't feel like spending excessive amounts of time searching for such rules?
Or what if they need a ruling during a session? Should they pause mid-way through a combat round and say "Hang on guys, I just need to google the rules for this"? In general, the PCs can be pretty consistently relied upon to do something the DM did not expect, and they may not know the rules just off the top of their head - or at all.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:01 PM
And what if, say, the DM in question is not familiar with every single rule that has ever been published anywhere, and doesn't feel like spending excessive amounts of time searching for such rules?
Or what if they need a ruling during a session? Should they pause mid-way through a combat round and say "Hang on guys, I just need to google the rules for this"? In general, the PCs can be pretty consistently relied upon to do something the DM did not expect, and they may not know the rules just off the top of their head - or at all.

Already answered.

They should read the rules of the game before running it. If a player opts to specialize in a given thing, they should DEFINITELY ensure they at least understand those rules well. Then, if a rule issue comes up in game, they can look up the rule. Books have indices, SRD has search. Either way, you can locate it in about thirty seconds. Neither function is exactly hard to use, after all.

Britter
2011-03-21, 10:03 PM
I find this argument mildly amusing, not because of the content [I think being unable to run a plot because the rules are unhelpful is stupid, but that's your outlook] but the examples sited.

Burning Wheel, last I checked, has something that's exactly like the D&D rule zero. As does every system that has Fate points or the like.

FATE says it clearest; "if something needs to happen for the plot to go forward, it happens. Simply say to your players "so and so happens and you are captured. This is the villain's monologue. For being good sports about this, have a Fate point!""

This Sentiment is found in most games, though there isn't necessarily a buyoff for cooperation. Burning Wheel is also helped by the fact that it's entirely up to the GM whether you die or not, which is not the case in most other games.

1) The correlation with Rule Zero and ALL IMPROVISING that some people seem to insist on is not my assertion. Rule Zero, as a method for removing any checks or balances on the GM (regardless of if they use that freedom for good or ill) is what I am against. Every game ever requires GM improvising, and every game ever will require rulings. I will concede that the issue with my approach may be that I have failed to accurately define Rule Zero, as per my understanding of it. If that is the case, I am not alone, as there are several definitions in play within this discussion.

2) Burning Wheel does not, in fact, allow the GM to choose if you die or not any more than any other RPG system I have played in a nearly twenty year gaming career. In my experience, it is actually the opposite. The system has several mechanics in place that alleviate easy PC death, though the death of a PC is still a possibility.

Aspenor
2011-03-21, 10:04 PM
Of course there is a rule zero. DM's should use it for immersion, though, not in the players vs. DM mentality that is prevalent in the OP.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:09 PM
1) The correlation with Rule Zero and ALL IMPROVISING that some people seem to insist on is not my assertion. Rule Zero, as a method for removing any checks or balances on the GM (regardless of if they use that freedom for good or ill) is what I am against. Every game ever requires GM improvising, and every game ever will require rulings. I will concede that the issue with my approach may be that I have failed to accurately define Rule Zero, as per my understanding of it. If that is the case, I am not alone, as there are several definitions in play within this discussion.

Most arguments that have anything to do with GMing style eventually result in lots of quibbling over definitions. *shrug* Part o' the game. The only solution is to TPK the monk DMPC with a narrativist railroading DM adhering to the law of GNS.

Britter
2011-03-21, 10:14 PM
Most arguments that have anything to do with GMing style eventually result in lots of quibbling over definitions. *shrug* Part o' the game. The only solution is to TPK the monk DMPC with a narrativist railroading DM adhering to the law of GNS.

Yeah, it is very true. Definitions are a real pain.

Regardless, this has been a fun discussion.

Also, I believe you may have broken my RPGTrope-o-meter with that last sentence there. Well played!

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 10:14 PM
That's funny, you don't seem to be a fan of reading foot notes.

[quote]1. If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can make out what’s being said, assuming that you understand the language.

0 DC to be aware of talking, but you have to beat it by ten or more to make out what's being said.

If a player storms out on me when I don't roll listen so the innkeeper can take his order because I didn't make that house rule explicit I will laugh at him as he leaves.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:17 PM
That's funny, you don't seem to be a fan of reading foot notes.



0 DC to be aware of talking, but you have to beat it by ten or more to make out what's being said.

Take ten. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 10:18 PM
Take ten. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#taking10)

A -1 wis modifier means you've got a less than 50% chance of understanding things being said into your ear.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 10:19 PM
A -1 wis modifier means you've got a less than 50% chance of understanding things being said into your ear.

You've never met inattentive people before?

Doc Roc
2011-03-21, 10:20 PM
A -1 wis modifier means you've got a less than 50% chance of understanding things being said into your ear.

Meshes well with my real world experience.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 10:21 PM
No, inattentive would be a -4 to listen.

Distracted would be -5 (or +5 to DC, if we're being nitpicky.)


Meshes well with my real world experience.

Remember, if they're rolling they're actively trying to comprehend.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:24 PM
Meshes well with my real world experience.

There's this one player I know...50% would be a stellar improvement. That said, he does have an abysmal wis score. Still, I've said entire sentences to him, and had him repeat back something else entirely.

He needs to retrain skill points or something.

Raum
2011-03-21, 10:35 PM
I find the biased nature of this mildly amusing. Rule 0 is about power. Potatocubed had that much right on the second page. The problem is, give the wrong person a taste of power and they'll turn into one of Kipling's "Little Tin Gods".

Bottom line - gaming is a social activity. If you have to wave "Rule 0" flags instead of seeking consensus from your friends / co-gamers, you probably need to take a serious look at why. Is it about helping your friends enjoy the game? If they're enjoying the game, why couldn't consensus arrive at the same conclusion? Perhaps it is really about the exercise of power.

tonberrian
2011-03-21, 10:47 PM
Already answered.

They should read the rules of the game before running it. If a player opts to specialize in a given thing, they should DEFINITELY ensure they at least understand those rules well. Then, if a rule issue comes up in game, they can look up the rule. Books have indices, SRD has search. Either way, you can locate it in about thirty seconds. Neither function is exactly hard to use, after all.

They are not exhaustive, and players are nothing if not inventive.

For example, a player decides he wants to brew up Alchemist's Fire. Okay, that's simple enough, and covered by the Craft (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/craft.htm) rules. Oops, now he wants to store more of it in a larger container so he can use. A DM's got to come to a decision on this, either "No, you can't do that (optional but preferred: and here's why)." or "Yes, you can do that and here's what happens." This is a relatively sane example - you could also have someone using Decanters of Endless Water and waterwheels to set up an enormous capacitor, or trying to build a Star Destroyer (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=150.msg1246#msg1246), or summoning enough antimatter to crack the planet (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2010735#post2010735). Yes, these examples are ridiculous, but players are known to do ridiculous things like these or attacking deadly pavilions or casting spells that cannot miss on the nontangible absence of light.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:50 PM
The answer is simple. If the rules do not, anywhere, grant you the ability to kill horrific amounts of catgirls by alternating between game physics, star wars physics, and reality physics...you can't.

Or, if it's generally agreed on...let them blow up the universe. That's a game problem that tends to be self-correcting.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 10:54 PM
I find the biased nature of this mildly amusing. Rule 0 is about power. Potatocubed had that much right on the second page. The problem is, give the wrong person a taste of power and they'll turn into one of Kipling's "Little Tin Gods".

Bottom line - gaming is a social activity. If you have to wave "Rule 0" flags instead of seeking consensus from your friends / co-gamers, you probably need to take a serious look at why. Is it about helping your friends enjoy the game? If they're enjoying the game, why couldn't consensus arrive at the same conclusion? Perhaps it is really about the exercise of power.

I think the problem is that this can roll both ways. See, power is power. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html) Rule 0 wielded by the GM is 'power' (It's a pretty damn weird dynamics if that actually exerts power over RL relationships but whatever.) Good or ill. Vote with your feet is a power, bullying your GM is power, rules lawyering because it's fair is power. Social conventions are power and being an ass is its own special kind of power.

As a GM, I'd stand here and defend Rule 0 as a means to keep disruptive power gamers in line. Remember, got my start GMing six year old parties that changed weekly. Characters were persistent, and groups lumped together as much by age as by XP. You got all sorts of players looking for all sorts of games. No rules system can withstand that kind of demand.

If limiting the GM to RAW and RA Agreed Upon work for you, then bravo. Have fun with with that. But to say that people use Rule 0 only do so because they can't read the rules is needlessly offensive and simply untrue.

You play your ways, you play yours, I'll play mine. Sometimes that's not an option, and sometimes people can't deal with not getting things their way. But that's the point where the GM stops being a GM and start being a babysitter for conflicting players, which is a whole new world of power and responsibility.

Edit:


trying to build a Star Destroyer (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=150.msg1246#msg1246)

Incidentally, this happened at summer camp. High level play was basically 'counselors taking their retired PC and trying the break the system as horribly as possible... and then amending the rules so it could never happen again.' But yeah 'Triangle Ships' were quite cannon and a staple of some of the PC/ex-PC run 'end game' organizations.

Tyndmyr
2011-03-21, 10:57 PM
As a GM, I'd stand here and defend Rule 0 as a means to keep disruptive power gamers in line.

Or...I could just not play with disruptive power gamers.

tonberrian
2011-03-21, 10:57 PM
The answer is simple. If the rules do not, anywhere, grant you the ability to kill horrific amounts of catgirls by alternating between game physics, star wars physics, and reality physics...you can't.

Or, if it's generally agreed on...let them blow up the universe. That's a game problem that tends to be self-correcting.

And this isn't an application of Rule 0 because...?

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 10:58 PM
And this isn't an application of Rule 0 because...?

Because you're not changing any rules.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 11:01 PM
Or...I could just not play with disruptive power gamers.

Or I could show some ****ing flexibility, because I don't need to end friendships/quit a job because I dislike someone's style of play. Because, you know, compromises can happen.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:06 PM
The "compromise" is they can still be freinds, but you don't play D&D together. I don't see what's complex about that.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 11:06 PM
The answer is simple. If the rules do not, anywhere, grant you the ability to kill horrific amounts of catgirls by alternating between game physics, star wars physics, and reality physics...you can't.


And that's a terrible thing. That Star Destroyer is all RAW except for the DC difficulty (which you will incidentally never find in any DnD book ever). If a player wants a Star Destroyer that bad they get their damn Destroyer and get to shoot stuff with it too!


The "compromise" is they can still be freinds, but you don't play D&D together. I don't see what's complex about that.

Your options are: oh, hey, I like you, but I just can't stand to do this hobby with you. So me and Tommy and John, (who you've know since middle school) and Jessie, (your girlfriend) are gonna hang out every Saturday night, eat pizza, drink caffeine, and have **** tons of fun but, yeah, if you show up I'll kick you out. 'Kay thanks bye.

or

No, you can't play Pun-Pun, or anything else you got of those CharOp boards. Save it for the annual drunken one-shot. (Everyone in the party takes a shot for every PC death. Every time you earn enough XP to level the GM has to do two. Start the game on two beers.)

tonberrian
2011-03-21, 11:06 PM
Because you're not changing any rules.

Ah, but there is an assumption built into almost every game system that except for where it is noted, everything works as it does in real life. We expect euclidean geometry, Newtonian physics, gravity fairly universal, and other simple facts that we take for granted to be in effect in the game world precisely because we take them for granted. The logical extension of that is that electromagnetism and other, more esoteric fields of physics are also viable. You are changing the rules simply by adding one that says the physics of whatever game world you are in differs enough from the real one that those assumptions fail to hold.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:07 PM
Ah, but there is an assumption built into almost every game system that except for where it is noted, everything works as it does in real life. We expect euclidean geometry, Newtonian physics, gravity fairly universal, and other simple facts that we take for granted to be in effect in the game world precisely because we take them for granted. The logical extension of that is that electromagnetism and other, more esoteric fields of physics are also viable. You are changing the rules simply by adding one that says the physics of whatever game world you are in differs enough from the real one that those assumptions fail to hold.

Can you quote that "rule" as a specific statement ruling that all known physical earth properties apply as they do in real life?

Raum
2011-03-21, 11:10 PM
I think the problem is that this can roll both ways. See, power is power. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html) Rule 0 wielded by the GM is 'power' (It's a pretty damn weird dynamics if that actually exerts power over RL relationships but whatever.) Good or ill. Vote with your feet is a power, bullying your GM is power, rules lawyering because it's fair is power. Social conventions are power and being an ass is its own special kind of power.

As a GM, I'd stand here and defend Rule 0 as a means to keep disruptive power gamers in line. So you're advocating use of what you term the "pretty weird dynamics" of using a game rule to "exert power over RL relationships"?


If limiting the GM to RAW and RA Agreed Upon work for you, then bravo. Have fun with with that. But to say that people use Rule 0 only do so because they can't read the rules is needlessly offensive and simply untrue. Funny, I don't believe I said anything which could be translated as this.


You play your ways, you play yours, I'll play mine. Sometimes that's not an option, and sometimes people can't deal with not getting things their way. But that's the point where the GM stops being a GM and start being a babysitter for conflicting players, which is a whole new world of power and responsibility.I think every group playing their own way, including those who agree to cede power to one individual, is always an option. That was actually my point...and why the 'must have R0 to play' bias amuses me.

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 11:16 PM
So you're advocating use of what you term the "pretty weird dynamics" of using a game rule to "exert power over RL relationships"?

Nope, I'm saying that if that is the case then it'd be pretty weird.


Funny, I don't believe I said anything which could be translated as this.

I don't think you did either. I was explaining the problem


I think every group playing their own way, including those who agree to cede power to one individual, is always an option. That was actually my point...and why the 'must have R0 to play' bias amuses me.

But there's also a 'must never R0 to play' as well. An argument isn't biased, the two sides are. And since everyone should play their own way, both sides are wrong.



Can you quote that "rule" as a specific statement ruling that all known physical earth properties apply as they do in real life?

Can you prove the reverse? Then it's a GM's decision, e.g. R0, which I think is rather the point.

tonberrian
2011-03-21, 11:24 PM
Can you quote that "rule" as a specific statement ruling that all known physical earth properties apply as they do in real life?


This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world. That is to say that while wizards cast spells, deities channel power to clerics, and dragons raze villages, the world is round, the laws of physics are applicable, and most people act like real people. The reason for this assumption is that unless they are told otherwise, this situation is what your players expect.

Bolding added for emphasis.

Thus, the default assumption for homebrewed settings in D&D 3.5 is that the laws of physics hold. The same logic applies to other systems as well. Any change to that is an executive decision on the part of the DM and thus could be interpreted as Rule 0, depending on your definition.

Raum
2011-03-21, 11:29 PM
Nope, I'm saying that if that is the case then it'd be pretty weird.Hmm, looked like you were advocating use of R0 "to keep disruptive players in line". That's using a game rule to correct a social issue.


I don't think you did either. I was explaining the problemAh, thanks for clearing that up - I had misunderstood.


But there's also a 'must never R0 to play' as well. An argument isn't biased, the two sides are. And since everyone should play their own way, both sides are wrong.As you pointed out in your earlier post, players have some amount of social power as well - from rules lawyering to walking out. And a couple others you pointed out. If so, they're either using one or more of the options available to them to fight the GM or they've given tacit consent. So either they've given consent and R0 wasn't necessary or they're objecting and R0 wasn't effective.

Most game problems could be avoided with better communication. No need to bludgeon people with rules (from either side), be disruptive, or try to "babysit". Just discuss the issue and be willing to compromise.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:29 PM
Can you prove the reverse? Then it's a GM's decision, e.g. R0, which I think is rather the point.

That's not how rule sets, arguments or reason work. He's making a positive claim which requires proof. The inverse, a negative claim only requires that there is no proof positive. In this case, there is no actual rule stating all real world physics applies, nor should there be.

tonberrian
2011-03-21, 11:32 PM
That's not how rule sets, arguments or reason work. He's making a positive claim which requires proof. The inverse, a negative claim only requires that there is no proof positive. In this case, there is no actual rule stating all real world physics applies, nor should there be.

But I did provide a rule. Or at least, I provided documentation of the phenomena that I described. However, if you don't believe that that rises to the level of a rule, there is also no rule to prove that the laws of physics do not apply, either. In that event, the DM has to rule on whether they do or do not, and in either case, he is changing the rules by adding to them - thus, Rule 0.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:40 PM
Bolding added for emphasis.

Thus, the default assumption for homebrewed settings in D&D 3.5 is that the laws of physics hold. The same logic applies to other systems as well. Any change to that is an executive decision on the part of the DM and thus could be interpreted as Rule 0, depending on your definition.

That specifies laws of physics, which are almost all immediately contradicted by the falling rules, since nearly every actual physical law deals with inertia and conservation. Those don't include matter/anti-matter interaction, nor death-star physics. Similarly, electromagnetism only extends to coloumb's law, beyond which it's theory again. Theory is far more common than law, and there's a reason D&D won't go into the theory.


Your options are: oh, hey, I like you, but I just can't stand to do this hobby with you. So me and Tommy and John, (who you've know since middle school) and Jessie, (your girlfriend) are gonna hang out every Saturday night, eat pizza, drink caffeine, and have **** tons of fun but, yeah, if you show up I'll kick you out. 'Kay thanks bye.

or

No, you can't play Pun-Pun, or anything else you got of those CharOp boards. Save it for the annual drunken one-shot. (Everyone in the party takes a shot for every PC death. Every time you earn enough XP to level the GM has to do two. Start the game on two beers.)

Well, if you actually cared to read the rules enough, you'd know that supposed char-op guy is actually breaking the rules, because pun-pun is only possible when you're simultaneously running Planescape and Faerun, making it only possible in spelljammer. At least the current incarnation, the previous incarnation only requires you be playing in Faerun.

But yeah, I absolutely don't play D&D with my freinds who don't play cooperatively. I have Fridays for D&D, and Saturday evenings for everything else, and honestly, if they don't want to be discluded they can shape up.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:42 PM
But I did provide a rule. Or at least, I provided documentation of the phenomena that I described. However, if you don't believe that that rises to the level of a rule, there is also no rule to prove that the laws of physics do not apply, either. In that event, the DM has to rule on whether they do or do not, and in either case, he is changing the rules by adding to them - thus, Rule 0.

I am noting it and can agree to it, but it's not anything stating that all physical laws are at play. Just the laws of physics, which don't really let you get away with anything fun, and are contradicted as soon as you hit the falling rules. Using major creation to create a huge pile of compressed plutonium for example has no bearing on the laws of physics, since neutrino interaction falls into quantum theory, and isn't a law.

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

The_JJ
2011-03-21, 11:48 PM
Hmm, looked like you were advocating use of R0 "to keep disruptive players in line". That's using a game rule to correct a social issue.

No, that's using a game rule to maximize enjoyment in the face of disruption. I'm not 'keeping players in line.' I'm preventing them from ruining everyone's fun because they don't feel like abusing a loophole etc. If you'd like to draw a clearer distinction between game rules and social issues and how they do or don't apply to each other, and how this may or may not relate to my use of it RE my contention that there is no right way to play, then I'd be glad to elaborate.


As you pointed out in your earlier post, players have some amount of social power as well - from rules lawyering to walking out. And a couple others you pointed out. If so, they're either using one or more of the options available to them to fight the GM or they've given tacit consent. So either they've given consent and R0 wasn't necessary or they're objecting and R0 wasn't effective.

In which case any argument about the validity or lack thereof RE: R0 is moot, because if everyone involved can act like adults it shouldn't be a problem. Thus we are in agreement.


Most game problems could be avoided with better communication. No need to bludgeon people with rules (from either side), be disruptive, or try to "babysit". Just discuss the issue and be willing to compromise.

Indeed. This grows more complex when dealing with six year olds (and those that act like six year olds...) but, as I said, that's no longer a GMing problem. That's a babysitting problem.


That's not how rule sets, arguments or reason work. He's making a positive claim which requires proof. The inverse, a negative claim only requires that there is no proof positive. In this case, there is no actual rule stating all real world physics applies, nor should there be.

No, because we aren't deal with formal logic. Here we're dealing with a semantics issue. He was arguing 'ambiguity resolved by GM therefore is R0' you were arguing 'didn't change the rules, ergo, is R0.' It would be my point that R0 is patently meant to fill ambiguity gaps in RAW.

I was saying that because you can not provide a rule that says 'the DnD-verse is as RAW, and if not RAW then real world, except in the specific cases when it's not, those cases being those cases that avoid catgirl deaths.' Which is as R0 as 'If not RAW then real world.' Which, apparently, is RAW, so that's nice.

tonberrian
2011-03-21, 11:52 PM
That specifies laws of physics, which are almost all immediately contradicted by the falling rules, since nearly every actual physical law deals with inertia and conservation. Those don't include matter/anti-matter interaction, nor death-star physics. Similarly, electromagnetism only extends to coloumb's law, beyond which it's theory again. Theory is far more common than law, and there's a reason D&D won't go into the theory.

Electromagnetism and antimatter both fall under the umbrella of physics. Physics is the study of matter and it's motion through spacetime - basically, any interaction between particles, waves, and any combination of the above falls under physics.

Also, your understanding of scientific theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) is flawed.


A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:53 PM
No, because we aren't deal with formal logic. Here we're dealing with a semantics issue. He was arguing 'ambiguity resolved by GM therefore is R0' you were arguing 'didn't change the rules, ergo, is R0.' It would be my point that R0 is patently meant to fill ambiguity gaps in RAW.

That's not how you argue ever, not just formal logic. Unless you're learning how to argue from Fox news, you should know that it's a shoddy dodge, and people should call you out on it. If you have the positive claim the onus is on you, you can't pass it off to the other guy and have any credibility because of it.


I was saying that because you can not provide a rule that says 'the DnD-verse is as RAW, and if not RAW then real world, except in the specific cases when it's not, those cases being those cases that avoid catgirl deaths.' Which is as R0 as 'If not RAW then real world.' Which, apparently, is RAW, so that's nice.

I'm saying you should never, ever appeal to the real world, when the game has rules set out instead, and there's nothing in the real world that should be included in the game. I can't honestly think of a situation where it would be necessary, and almost invariably I can see how limited DM/player knowledge of a real world phenomina could cause any supposed "real world" thing to break the game.

Yukitsu
2011-03-21, 11:55 PM
Electromagnetism and antimatter both fall under the umbrella of physics. Physics is the study of matter and it's motion through spacetime - basically, any interaction between particles, waves, and any combination of the above falls under physics.

Also, your understanding of scientific theory is flawed.

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

The_JJ
2011-03-22, 12:07 AM
That specifies laws of physics, which are almost all immediately contradicted by the falling rules, since nearly every actual physical law deals with inertia and conservation. Those don't include matter/anti-matter interaction, nor death-star physics. Similarly, electromagnetism only extends to coloumb's law, beyond which it's theory again. Theory is far more common than law, and there's a reason D&D won't go into the theory.

It outlines the specific exceptions, up to and including magic, but doesn't not state that these are the only exception. 'As real world except when directly contradicted by the rules' is clearly RAI and arguably RAW.

Everything else is a needless fallback on insistent terminology. Under idiomatic English your argument falls apart.


Well, if you actually cared to read the rules enough, you'd know that supposed char-op guy is actually breaking the rules, because pun-pun is only possible when you're simultaneously running Planescape and Faerun, making it only possible in spelljammer. At least the current incarnation, the previous incarnation only requires you be playing in Faerun.

Which is a silly digression that could quite possibly be wrong (who knows, I might be running a Planescape game in Faerun) and regardless has no bearing. I could sub-out 'Batman Nova Wizard that Never Leaves His Demi-Plane' and the arguement would be no less valid.


But yeah, I absolutely don't play D&D with my freinds who don't play cooperatively. I have Fridays for D&D, and Saturday evenings for everything else, and honestly, if they don't want to be discluded they can shape up.

This is nice for you. I like to spend time with friends. This is facilitated by compromise. In my case, Rule 0 facilitates the cooperation with those who might classify as 'un-cooperative,' because I find compromise works best when it cut both ways. What you do with your life has no bearing on mine.


I am noting it and can agree to it, but it's not anything stating that all physical laws are at play. Just the laws of physics, which don't really let you get away with anything fun, and are contradicted as soon as you hit the falling rules. Using major creation to create a huge pile of compressed plutonium for example has no bearing on the laws of physics, since neutrino interaction falls into quantum theory, and isn't a law.

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

See, problem is, there is a difference between the laws of physics and the laws of physics as we classify them. The two are different, but an underpinning of the scientific system is that the former exists seperate from the latter. Gravity remained a Law even though Newton had not codified it as such. This is, in fact, what made it a Law. The fact that it was a Law, constant and immutable (except in cases modified by other laws, o' course, but don't be silly about this) regardless of its articulation by humans



That's not how you argue ever, not just formal logic. Unless you're learning how to argue from Fox news, you should know that it's a shoddy dodge, and people should call you out on it. If you have the positive claim the onus is on you, you can't pass it off to the other guy and have any credibility because of it.

Reducto ad Fox News? Low blow, sir, low blow. :smallamused: Seriously though, ad hominem attacks and false analogies are as much bad form.

Anyway his claim, was perfectly viable and already proven under the semantically framework he was working under, e.g. ambiguity existed (implicitly true if we're arguing derailing the thread about it right now) and the GM made a ruling. Ergo, under his framework, R0. QED.


I'm saying you should never, ever appeal to the real world, when the game has rules set out instead, and there's nothing in the real world that should be included in the game.

... :smallconfused:? How does that follow? From anything. This is not a rhetorical insult, I am honestly confused by this statement and would like elaboration.


I can't honestly think of a situation where it would be necessary, and almost invariably I can see how limited DM/player knowledge of a real world phenomina could cause any supposed "real world" thing to break the game.

And here I'm just lost. Yes, the Commoner railgun breaks lightspeed. We're saying this is a bad thing that needs adjudication, because RAW is silly.

The Big Dice
2011-03-22, 04:02 AM
Yes, the Commoner railgun breaks lightspeed. We're saying this is a bad thing that needs adjudication, because RAW is silly.
Until it gets to the last guy in the line. Then it becomes an improvised ranged weapon, with all the RAW stuff that goes with it. So lightspeed followed by meh.

Anyway, I'm not seeing an argument against Rule 0 that's more valid that "I don't like it because an undetermined amount of time ago, a GM made a bad decision using it. Therefore, it must never be used ever at all or you are kicking puppies while murdering catgirls" and so on.

Well guess what, I've seen people using grappling wrong. I've seen Attacks of Opportunity used wrong. I've seen minimum points expenditure in GURPS used wrong. I've seen more RAW constructs used wrongly in many more RPGs than just D&D than I have rule 0 used badly.

Should those rules have been banned in the same way, or should hte people involved learn how to use them in a better way?

And guess what, the banning of Rule 0 is an excercise of Rule 0.

By modifying the rules in such a way, you are invoking the rule that says you are allowed to modify the rules. By ignoring the rule, you are invoking the rule that says it's ok to pick and choose what rules you use. So you're either for it, or using it.

The_JJ
2011-03-22, 04:12 AM
Until it gets to the last guy in the line. Then it becomes an improvised ranged weapon, with all the RAW stuff that goes with it. So lightspeed followed by meh.


The implications of lightspeed only is rather incredible though. Break causality!


Worst comes to worst, you can get yourself the world's most ridiculous messenger system.

Lawl. Tippyverse wizards playing Starcraft via LAN(dless peasants.)

The Big Dice
2011-03-22, 04:16 AM
The implications of lightspeed only is rather incredible though. Break causality!


Worst comes to worst, you can get yourself the world's most ridiculous messenger system.

Lawl. Tippyverse wizards playing Starcraft via LAN(dless peasants.)

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

Eldan
2011-03-22, 04:16 AM
Already answered.

They should read the rules of the game before running it. If a player opts to specialize in a given thing, they should DEFINITELY ensure they at least understand those rules well. Then, if a rule issue comes up in game, they can look up the rule. Books have indices, SRD has search. Either way, you can locate it in about thirty seconds. Neither function is exactly hard to use, after all.

See, I disagree with this.

I used to DM a lot at a time when, as a student, I had ten to twelve hour work days in the lab. In my free time, I wanted to build worlds, maybe read some fluff, but not read rules.
I have a vague knowledge of most of the books out there, I'm familiar with a lot of the most obvious optimization and I read a lot of forums. I'd like to think I'm well familiar with the core rules.
But I certainly don't know and, most likely, won't care, what a sidebar in the the Codex Draconis Edition XVIII, page 148 says about metabreath feats when I need a dragon to breathe acid that rusts steel for a plot I'm writing. I'm taking a green dragon, slap "Rust Breath" on it and call it a day. If someone asks, I'll call it a template.

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



In which case any argument about the validity or lack thereof RE: R0 is moot, because if everyone involved can act like adults it shouldn't be a problem. Thus we are in agreement.


Interesting. I'd argue the exact opposite: if the players trust the GM to run a fair and fun game, they should also trust him to use rule 0 fairly.

potatocubed
2011-03-22, 05:44 AM
As a messenger system it's awesome. Anywhere to anywhere the line of peasants goes in a single round.

It occurs to me that with strong enough peasants you could just pass more peasants down the line, thus growing your communication network at a rate of five feet per six seconds, limited by the birth rate of peasants.

obliged_salmon
2011-03-22, 08:29 AM
Can't necessarily speak for other "anti-Rule 0" people, but I argue against its use as a means of transcendance, rather than because of any horrible scarring done to me in the past.

Simply, if the players can trust the GM to facilitate their storytelling, and the GM can trust the players to tell the story, then Rule 0 is never required. Thus, removing it is something to strive for.

Now, if the GM can't trust the players (i.e. players are 6 year olds), then fine, Rule 0 is necessary. Still, the idea of Rule 0 indicates that the GM is boss, teacher, father figure from 1950's sitcoms, who knows best. The "way the world works" can't be entrusted to the hands of the players. They will use it greedily and powergamery, not at all responsibly. The GM is the only one who truly understands what the game needs to thrive for the enjoyment of all.

That's the mentality, associated with Rule 0, that I personally would rather move beyond. If it doesn't apply to all y'all's games, then I have no objection to your use of Rule 0.

Also, I'm rather enjoying this thread, it's a lot of fun.

Jayabalard
2011-03-22, 08:42 AM
Simply, if the players can trust the GM to facilitate their storytelling, and the GM can trust the players to tell the story, then Rule 0 is never required. Thus, removing it is something to strive for.Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise; just because something isn't required doesn't mean that you should strive to remove it.

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

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


Still, the idea of Rule 0 indicates that the GM is boss, teacher, father figure from 1950's sitcoms, who knows best. The "way the world works" can't be entrusted to the hands of the players. They will use it greedily and powergamery, not at all responsibly. The GM is the only one who truly understands what the game needs to thrive for the enjoyment of all.

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


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

Tyndmyr
2011-03-22, 08:47 AM
The "compromise" is they can still be freinds, but you don't play D&D together. I don't see what's complex about that.

Yup. I have some friends I do not play D&D with. I have some friends I don't go drinking with, or partake in other activities with. Not everyone does all things. Meh.

Jayabalard
2011-03-22, 08:57 AM
That's not how rule sets, arguments or reason work. He's making a positive claim which requires proof. The inverse, a negative claim only requires that there is no proof positive. In this case, there is no actual rule stating all real world physics applies, nor should there be.No, if you want to prove a negative claim, then you generally have to demonstrate that there does not exist an X where Y is true.

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

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

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

Pigkappa
2011-03-22, 09:02 AM
D&D and other RP games try to simulate a world and therefore allow the players to choose among a wide amount of options.

This means that there must be rules for a lot of things, which means that there are a lot of rules. So it is likely that some of them end up being unbalanced (e.g. spells to shapechange in D&D, Kung Fu 4 in nWoD) and rule 0 allows the GM to solve this problem.

There's nothing bad with it unless he acts as a jerk and, for example, states that Shapechange doesn't work at all after the sorcerer got it and doesn't allow him to drop that spell and take another one.

Eldan
2011-03-22, 09:20 AM
No, if you want to prove a negative claim, then you generally have to demonstrate that there does not exist an X where Y is true.

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

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

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

There is the passage in the DMG, which already has been quoted, stating that physics are the same unless stated otherwise.

However: we already have a pretty good indication that quantum physics should be different: there are four (main) elemental planes. The world consists of four elements, more or less in balance. So I'd argue that the world mostly follows something akin to alchemy, or a general medieval to 17th century-ish understanding of science: superficially the same, especially at those levels easily observable by (nonmagical) D&D science, but with huge underlying differences. (Which should be pretty obvious, given that magic exists, belief changes reality and things like teleportation are actually rather simple).