PDA

View Full Version : Immunity to Rule Zero



Tyndmyr
2012-06-06, 11:30 AM
Aright, if there was a feat...(or similarly costed option for non D&D players) that gave you immunity to rule zero...would you take it? When and why?

Saph
2012-06-06, 11:44 AM
Even apart from the inherent ridiculousness of a feat that "forces" the DM to obey the printed rules, I wouldn't take it. Most games are close to unplayable without some degree of Rule Zero, and if you don't trust the DM to use Rule Zero properly then you probably aren't going to enjoy the game anyway.

Besides, if you know what you're doing Rule Zero is far more of a help than a hindrance from the player's point of view. :smalltongue:

Morph Bark
2012-06-06, 11:46 AM
If there was a feat that made me immune to Rule Zero, I wouldn't take it. The DM would just get me back for it somehow.

Now, if there was a follow-up feat that allowed me to engineer Rule Zero myself as a player... I definitely would. Once. No more.

valadil
2012-06-06, 11:47 AM
Nope. If I don't trust my GM with rule zero, I stop playing with that GM. Similarly if I'm pulling shenanigans that would be blocked by rule zero, I don't really deserve to take a feat that make those shenanigans work.

erikun
2012-06-06, 11:48 AM
Having immunity to Rule Zero is like having immunity to Earthquake (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/earthquake.htm); it's not really going to prevent you from being affected by it at all. And that's besides the rather obvious - do you really want immunity to being able to breathe again after you begin drowning?

Silliness aside for a minute, "Immunity to Rule Zero" is just a bit much of a metarule for my taste at a gaming table. It's like having immunity to everything printed on page 34, or possessing immunity to Clerics. Unless I'm playing a game that is intentionally self-referring - which could be fun to do - even the idea of such a feat is so divorced from the mechanics created to allow roleplaying that I'd probably quit the game if it was even available. I never want to run into an in-character situation with the only explanation being "because I took a feat that allows me to ignore the game rules".

wiimanclassic
2012-06-06, 12:19 PM
Aright, if there was a feat...(or similarly costed option for non D&D players) that gave you immunity to rule zero...would you take it? When and why?

There wouldn't be since the entire point of rule zero is a so a DM can stop you from completely ruining the game or plot.

GolemsVoice
2012-06-06, 12:25 PM
Well, as others pointed out, this feat is pretty hard to implement (if a town that should have a certain quantity of magical items according to the rules for cities, but doesn't have them, rule zero? And if you want to buy an item but can't, does rule zero affect you directly, here?) but even if there was some definite effect, I wouldn't take it. I trust my GMs to be reasonable people, because so far, they always have been. If my DM rule zeroes something, it's either because he thinks it's really important, or because we agreed that the rules do not adequately cover the situation and it's his call.

Yora
2012-06-06, 12:32 PM
Do not take it. If the DM think there's something wrong with the characters abilities, there is only one way to fix it. Killing the the character with applied RAW.
Ambushed by a sentient sphere of annihilation during sleep. :smallbiggrin:

Rorrik
2012-06-06, 12:42 PM
Having immunity to Rule Zero is like having immunity to Earthquake (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/earthquake.htm); it's not really going to prevent you from being affected by it at all. And that's besides the rather obvious - do you really want immunity to being able to breathe again after you begin drowning?

This. Rule zero more often affects the world around your character than your character. Your character may be immune to the DM deciding he disappears, but that doesn't protect him from the DM deciding 9001 elephants appear above his head.

As had been said, not only would it not help, but if you need it the game isn't worth playing.

Killer Angel
2012-06-06, 12:49 PM
Aright, if there was a feat...(or similarly costed option for non D&D players) that gave you immunity to rule zero...would you take it? When and why?

In real game, I wouldn't take it for the reasons already listed.
That said, it already exists something similar... every time there's a thread and we optimize the solutions, assuming a theoretical DM strictly bounded by RAW.

Empedocles
2012-06-06, 01:39 PM
Could someone tell me what rule zero is? I'm assuming it's sort of like the DM's control over the game mechanics...

valadil
2012-06-06, 01:42 PM
Could someone tell me what rule zero is? I'm assuming it's sort of like the DM's control over the game mechanics...

Rule Zero is the GM's DMG given right to change any rule he so chooses. It says that the GM trumps the books.

razark
2012-06-06, 02:03 PM
My character is immune to rule zero. DM uses rule zero to eliminate the feat from the game. Rule zero affects the game, not my character.

Net effect: My character now has one less feat than it should.

Analytica
2012-06-06, 02:07 PM
"Look here, I took this as my first-level feat! So you have to let me play Pun-Pun, else you're doing it wrong." :smallbiggrin:

That said, there are indie game concepts where rules may specify that a player may gain control over NPCs/setting elements under some circumstances (i.e. spend a Fate token or something to declare that there indeed does exist a thieves' guild run by your old lover). I think that is the closest to what the OP suggests that I've heard of.

Shadowknight12
2012-06-06, 04:38 PM
Even apart from the inherent ridiculousness of a feat that "forces" the DM to obey the printed rules, I wouldn't take it. Most games are close to unplayable without some degree of Rule Zero, and if you don't trust the DM to use Rule Zero properly then you probably aren't going to enjoy the game anyway.

Besides, if you know what you're doing Rule Zero is far more of a help than a hindrance from the player's point of view. :smalltongue:

This is my opinion as well. As a player, I love Rule Zero. As a DM, I try to be very cautious with it, but I wouldn't imagine running a game without at least a little of it.

NichG
2012-06-06, 04:49 PM
I wouldn't take it as a flaw, much less a feat. The most interesting stuff in recent games I've played in has all been DM homebrew, adjustments, etc. Even something that prevented the DM from changing rules on the fly after they've been announced for you means that if you find a bug in the system or design things wrong, you're now stuck with the bad design while other players get to participate in a fixed game.

Furthermore, depending on how literally you take it, there are inevitably parts of the game that just stop functioning. Much of any tabletop game requires adjucation in order to function - things like being dead preventing you from acting (which works for enemies as well as PCs if this particular thing came up).

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-06, 06:14 PM
NO

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

Asheram
2012-06-06, 06:24 PM
I wouldn't. Never.

Removing rule 0 and you're playing against an automata. You could as well play a computer game instead.

cfalcon
2012-06-06, 06:30 PM
May as well be immune to the plot as well.

Doesn't make sense, but I'll answer:


No way in hell. The DM knows what is going on in the game world. Without him there to arbitrate, nothing really makes much sense.

Katana_Geldar
2012-06-06, 06:31 PM
This is like saying "I wish I was the DM" in a Wish.

And yes, that IS on Mr Welch's list.

GnomeGninjas
2012-06-06, 06:53 PM
If there weren't other DMs in the area and the one there is is always rule zeroing everything I would if I have feats to spare.

Tvtyrant
2012-06-06, 07:00 PM
Meaning what exactly? If the rules don't cover something, we all go home instead?

newBlazingAngel
2012-06-06, 09:53 PM
Why exactly would you want to be immune to rule 0? A majority of its use is for rules that are unfair or bad to the player. It seems like it would be a counterproductive feat. The only way this could work in your benefite if you could overule the DM's decision and choose your own solution. But that would be game breaking.

Totally Guy
2012-06-07, 01:03 AM
Meaning what exactly? If the rules don't cover something, we all go home instead?

If the rules don't cover something I would take a guess that the game isn't really about that thing after all. The players and the rules need to all communicate what the game they are playing is about.

It's frustrating to play a game that's about something that you have no investment in or one where the situations that are the focus of play lack mechanics that deal with those situations.

Aux-Ash
2012-06-07, 01:30 AM
This is a bad idea. Both for the individual player and the game as a whole.

Rule zero is there to make sure that the gm care for his/hers players' enjoyment more than the written rules. By telling the gm that he's forbidden to use it... you essentially say that he should not care about your enjoyment first and foremost.

If you want the GM to play strictly by the rules, then just say so. A good GM will if that's what the group wants. And a bad GM does not need rule zero to make the game miserable.

GnomeGninjas
2012-06-07, 05:38 AM
Most of my experiences with rule zero has been the dm not knowing the rules and making something up ("um, yeah falling at 60ft. per round seems about right), not letting you do something ("no you cannot break the walls of the dungeon"), or declaring the you AC, save bonus, etc. is irrelevant and the monster beats you up (I don't care what your fort save is, the ghoul paralizes you"). Does anyone have any examples of when rule zero is useful besides stopping something like pun-pun??

Saph
2012-06-07, 05:54 AM
Does anyone have any examples of when rule zero is useful besides stopping something like pun-pun??

"Sorry, it seems your monk isn't proficient with unarmed strikes. You'll have to take a -4 to all your attack rolls. What? Well, yeah, but it's the rules. I mean, if I overlooked it that would be Rule Zero, and no-one wants that."

Tyndmyr
2012-06-07, 03:45 PM
My character is immune to rule zero. DM uses rule zero to eliminate the feat from the game. Rule zero affects the game, not my character.

Net effect: My character now has one less feat than it should.

This would be possibly one of the more hilarious cases of specific overriding general.

Now, I'm aware that no, WoTC will never print this feat. This is purely a "what if" scenario. For those requiring definition of what rule zero is, rule zero is the DM's permission to override the stated rules.

You do not require rule zero to make a game world or adventures. Those are also stated duties of the DM, and they have rather a lot of latitude in how such a thing is done. It would, rather, mean that your chars abilities(as well as those of other chars applied to you) would run strictly by the rules. If this ends up being a net force for good or ill...well, seeing how people perceive this is the point of the exercise.

Raum
2012-06-07, 03:54 PM
Have to say I'm kind of amused by the "omg we can't game without Rule Zero" trope. After all, there are probably more systems without an enshrined rule zero than with - it's just the most common system which had it stuck in print.

You ought to try a few different systems. Perhaps even one which encourages <gasp> player agency to one degree or another. :smallwink:

Morty
2012-06-07, 05:04 PM
I can't think of any system in which the book doesn't say that the GM is allowed and expected to improvise and tweak, if not strictly speaking change or ignore, the rules when it's necessary. The degree varies of course; GURPS or D&D are fairly strict about their rules while nWoD has an explicit "story trumps rules" policy. And rules aside, sometimes it's simply better to ignore the rules and let common sense dictate the course of events.
A good gamemaster will only do this when the story demands it. If the person running the game is so bad at it as to intentionally try to mess with your characters using this priviledge, a feat that makes your character immune to "rule zero" won't help you.

GnomeGninjas
2012-06-07, 05:31 PM
"Sorry, it seems your monk isn't proficient with unarmed strikes. You'll have to take a -4 to all your attack rolls. What? Well, yeah, but it's the rules. I mean, if I overlooked it that would be Rule Zero, and no-one wants that."

I believe that a monks unarmed strikes count as natural weapons as well as manufactured weapons and you are automaticly proficient with your natural weapons.

Raum
2012-06-07, 05:33 PM
I can't think of any system in which the book doesn't say that the GM is allowed and expected to improvise and tweak, if not strictly speaking change or ignore, the rules when it's necessary. You do know there are completely GM-less systems, right? Then there are all the systems which don't bother to spend time trying to declare who does what job...a lot of light systems fall into this category. Finally there are games which explicitly limit how the GM can affect the game. There are a lot of games out there.

Perhaps more to the point, handling rule disagreements is a group dynamics and communications issue. Stating one person is empowered to make all calls doesn't actually stop any arguing...just turn the arguments bitter (lots of threads show this) at worst or into persuasion attempts at best. Personal opinion, we're better off learning how to talk with our friends instead of at them. Communicate rather than dictate.

Lord.Sorasen
2012-06-07, 07:16 PM
No. I never really got why rule-0 is considered to be the ultimate DM power.

There are lots of things, entirely by RAW, which a DM can do to you. He can put the entire party at level one in a room with a venerable black dragon. Or start the campaign with your team falling off a cliff. The DM can create infinite unwinnable scenario, entirely within the rules. He can also fillibuster you, refusing to continue the scenario until you choose a different action.

With that considered, rule-0 isn't unlimited DM power. Not any more than the DM already had. Rule-0 will often be a necessary thing and I don't see any downsides to it at all.

TuggyNE
2012-06-07, 09:00 PM
you are automaticly proficient with your natural weapons.

You would think so, wouldn't you? But each type calls out whether it's proficient with its natural weapons or not, and humanoid is one of those that doesn't mention it. Unarmed strike is a simple weapon, though, and humanoids are proficient with all simple weapons ... "or by character class". From the example of commoners we see that not all character classes get all simple weapons, so the only proficiency list applicable is the Monk's — which does not mention unarmed strikes. Contrast giants, which get natural weapon proficiency explicitly in addition to simple and martial weapons (arguably redundant), or undead, which are similar, or aberrations, which get either natural weapons or all simple + held (if humanoid-shaped).

So yeah, as best I can tell, it's a really annoying oversight.

Emmerask
2012-06-07, 09:20 PM
In more cases then not rule zero is good for the game, sure you can abuse it but then again the dm can abuse so much stuff without bending the rules that if you have a jerk dm immunity to rule zero would do absolutely nothing...

For example a player asked me once if he could jump at the chandelier, swing and then attack the enemies below...
so I just rule zeroed it to a jump check, a str check (to see if he can hold on) and afterwards an attack on which he gets charge bonus (if he wants).

Without rule zero such complex actions might take 10+ dice rolls and the game would be on hold for no good reason.

Quietus
2012-06-07, 11:19 PM
In more cases then not rule zero is good for the game, sure you can abuse it but then again the dm can abuse so much stuff without bending the rules that if you have a jerk dm immunity to rule zero would do absolutely nothing...

For example a player asked me once if he could jump at the chandelier, swing and then attack the enemies below...
so I just rule zeroed it to a jump check, a str check (to see if he can hold on) and afterwards an attack on which he gets charge bonus (if he wants).

Without rule zero such complex actions might take 10+ dice rolls and the game would be on hold for no good reason.

Nah. Skills call out what each skill can be used for. There is no skill for "Swinging from a chandalier", therefore without rule zero, it's not possible. I mean, you could easily say it's a climb check to grab hold and use it as a launching point for a second jump check, but ... well, that'd be rule zero, deciding that Climb works for that. We can't have that.

Yukitsu
2012-06-08, 12:44 AM
I do have immunity to rule 0. I don't play in games where DMs feel they're entitled to it.

Killer Angel
2012-06-08, 01:56 AM
I do have immunity to rule 0. I don't play in games where DMs feel they're entitled to it.

So, you never "jump at the chandelier, swing and then attack the enemies below", right?

(I know what you were implying, but still rule 0 has also positive meanings)

Yukitsu
2012-06-08, 09:25 AM
So, you never "jump at the chandelier, swing and then attack the enemies below", right?

(I know what you were implying, but still rule 0 has also positive meanings)

No, I don't. I don't play under a DM that has to change around all the rules, and I don't play with players that would force me to change around all the rules when I DM.

Second, there is absolutely no reason a jump check can't look like that. So long as the results are equal, you don't need rule 0 to alter the aesthetics.

Third, just because you described something fancy, doesn't mean you should be getting away with more or less than the guy who just did a jumping charge from the second floor.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-08, 09:54 AM
Have to say I'm kind of amused by the "omg we can't game without Rule Zero" trope. After all, there are probably more systems without an enshrined rule zero than with - it's just the most common system which had it stuck in print.

You ought to try a few different systems. Perhaps even one which encourages <gasp> player agency to one degree or another. :smallwink:

Fully agree. I hadn't even considered the possibility that some folks might think it's universally required.

It's clearly not. Plenty of games don't have it.

I was more interested in how people felt about it.

Emmerask
2012-06-08, 10:06 AM
Fully agree. I hadn't even considered the possibility that some folks might think it's universally required.

It's clearly not. Plenty of games don't have it.

I was more interested in how people felt about it.

I have yet to see a single game where every logical action that could potentially be made has a corresponding rule attached to it, or a game system that canīt be broken because some rules just donīt match up, though feel free to post them.

You could make an argument for the very rules light or freeform games, but in those rule zero is actually implemented as a group effort... which is still rule zero :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2012-06-08, 10:44 AM
I have yet to see a single game where every logical action that could potentially be made has a corresponding rule attached to it, or a game system that canīt be broken because some rules just donīt match up, though feel free to post them.

You could make an argument for the very rules light or freeform games, but in those rule zero is actually implemented as a group effort... which is still rule zero :smallbiggrin:

Universalis doesn't use rule zero to override rules, but has instead a rule by which anyone can introduce a rule change during play, and possibly get it accepted. It's still a method of changing rules, but it's not rule zero at all.

Amber Diceless doesn't even HAVE a GM to use rule zero with.

Fate-based games have pretty specific rules even for world creation and narrative control. I won't say that all of them lack rule zero, but they certainly are not much like the GM-centric control that D&D imposes.

As for the "rule zero as a group effort is still rule zero"....that's clearly not the normal definition for rule zero, which is a DM-specific rule. Not all ways to change the rules are rule zero.

nedz
2012-06-08, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure that this makes any sense, consider he following situation:

After the DM has just finessed some rule, for whatever reason, ...

Player: "My character is immune to your ruling due to this Feat"
DM: "I'm going to ignore your feat for the moment ..."

Tyndmyr
2012-06-08, 12:56 PM
Specific overrides general. If you're immune to rule zero, the DM literally can't do that.

I am aware that the presence of such a feat is unusual, but if it exists, the correct resolution to the system you described is obvious.

Raum
2012-06-08, 04:31 PM
I have yet to see a single game where every logical action that could potentially be made has a corresponding rule attached to it, or a game system that canīt be broken because some rules just donīt match up, though feel free to post them.See Tyndmyr's list. There are more. Wushu being one I can't think of how to break, WaRP / OtE possibly being a second. I've been told Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard may fit but don't have personal experience. I think it was one of those two that gave the following specific advice to GMs though: "Say yes or roll the dice."


You could make an argument for the very rules light or freeform games, but in those rule zero is actually implemented as a group effort... which is still rule zero :smallbiggrin:No, rule zero is simply an autocratic method of resolving disputes. It gives all the power to one individual. There are countless ways to resolve disputes though - hell, you could have the disputants roll a die.

When it comes down to it, an autocratic decision is (probably) optimal when the system is too complex to easily understand the ramifications and /or when the disputants can't / won't communicate well enough to come to a reasonable solution quickly. Otherwise, I can't think of how it's "necessary".

I'm mildly curious though, why is the autocracy of rule zero so important to you that you consider it essential?

NichG
2012-06-08, 05:03 PM
I'm mildly curious though, why is the autocracy of rule zero so important to you that you consider it essential?

From my point of view, a big part of the job of the DM is to hold and track the hidden variables of the game. This is anything that the players and PCs do not or should not know. In a strongly collaborative-storytelling game, this is often handled by a sort of Uncertainty Principle - anything that has not been established is fair game to become true.

Personally, the main thing I get out of gaming is unravelling the mysteries of the plot, the world, etc. For these things to be consistent in a matter that can actually be figured out, certain things need to be centralized. That implies a certain autocracy already. Rule zero is just a way to let the one maintaining this background consistency guarantee that the rules of the game do not accidentally interfere with it due to unforseen effects (such as the Tippyverse being the end-point of logical setting evolution under the influence of the RAW). It also allows these background elements to have mechanical bite, rather than just being fluff information, which can be interesting.

Aside from personal preference though, I think its useful to have someone where the buck stops. For the one part, I don't know any game where an experienced group would not need to modify the rules for the stability/enjoyability of the game. This could be done as a group thing, but that causes problems:

I've been at lots of tables where distraction is already a very dangerous thing - people will get sidetracked talking about all sorts of things, which intrudes onto gaming time. If there's someone that can just decide and force the table to move on, it speeds things up tremendously. If you trust someone to make those decisions, and furthermore to listen to input on those decisions outside of the time window of the game, this works very well. The important thing is of course, don't play with someone who abuses that power. This falls under the general heading of 'don't play with jerks'.

cfalcon
2012-06-08, 07:09 PM
I'm mildly curious though, why is the autocracy of rule zero so important to you that you consider it essential?

Without the DM being the final arbiter, the game world is just flat out mush.

Reality is not determined by consensus, or, for that matter, a vote.

GnomeGninjas
2012-06-08, 10:19 PM
You would think so, wouldn't you? But each type calls out whether it's proficient with its natural weapons or not, and humanoid is one of those that doesn't mention it. Unarmed strike is a simple weapon, though, and humanoids are proficient with all simple weapons ... "or by character class". From the example of commoners we see that not all character classes get all simple weapons, so the only proficiency list applicable is the Monk's — which does not mention unarmed strikes. Contrast giants, which get natural weapon proficiency explicitly in addition to simple and martial weapons (arguably redundant), or undead, which are similar, or aberrations, which get either natural weapons or all simple + held (if humanoid-shaped).

So yeah, as best I can tell, it's a really annoying oversight.

I see that it help when RAW is stupid and stuff like that but why does it have to be "the DM is always right"? When situations come up that RAW gives bad rules for can't everyone just agree on a reasonable house rule instead of the DM just declaring it with no discussion or anything? It could delay the game some but often a reasonable house rule would be easy to come up with, (give monks proficiency with unarmed strikes).

Belril Duskwalk
2012-06-09, 12:32 AM
I see that it help when RAW is stupid and stuff like that but why does it have to be "the DM is always right"? When situations come up that RAW gives bad rules for can't everyone just agree on a reasonable house rule instead of the DM just declaring it with no discussion or anything? It could delay the game some but often a reasonable house rule would be easy to come up with, (give monks proficiency with unarmed strikes).

If everyone at the table is reasonable and willing to have calm rational discussions where they are willing to change their minds, then no, you don't need there to be a single person appointed to have the final say. However, in a world where people sometimes get personally invested in their own view of how the rules should work (and do I ever live in that world!) it's helpful to have someone at the table who has a blank check to say 'enough talk, this is how we're playing it for now, deal.' I don't mind rules discussion, but I've had days where, if we didn't have Rule Zero, some days we'd spend more time arguing the combat rules than actual playing the combat.

GnomeGninjas
2012-06-09, 05:55 AM
If everyone at the table is reasonable and willing to have calm rational discussions where they are willing to change their minds, then no, you don't need there to be a single person appointed to have the final say. However, in a world where people sometimes get personally invested in their own view of how the rules should work (and do I ever live in that world!) it's helpful to have someone at the table who has a blank check to say 'enough talk, this is how we're playing it for now, deal.' I don't mind rules discussion, but I've had days where, if we didn't have Rule Zero, some days we'd spend more time arguing the combat rules than actual playing the combat.

Thanks for explaining, that makes sense.

Jay R
2012-06-09, 10:15 AM
People are looking at Rule Zero as if it's only a tiny piece of what it is. The result is that some people are in favor of one version of Rule Zero, while other people are opposed to a different version.

For instance, one person said we need Rule Zero so you can swing on a chandelier, and another responded that we don't, since a simple Jump check covers that. But from the point of view of everyone arguing in favor of Rule Zero, the ruling that it's a Jump Check was, in fact, an example of Rule Zero.

The DM creates the world. Complete immunity to Rule Zero means the DM can't tell you there's a castle, if you wanted it to be a cottage. He can't introduce a monster if you don't want there to be one. He can't ever rule that your spell works other than how you want it to work. Nobody supports that.

In the entire game, unless you are playing a pre-printed module, the DM's unsupported word is the basis for every encounter, every NPC, every bit of action there is. Rule Zero is, by design, the absolute core of the world you're standing on (pre-printed setting and modules excepted).

On the other hand, complete blind adherence to Rule Zero means the DM can say, "Your 20th level Wizard is now a 2nd level monk", or "rocks fall; everybody dies". Nobody supports that, either.

The people opposed to Rule Zero seem to think that's what really happens. By contrast, the people who support it are arguing that its use allows new and exciting options.

Here's my position:
1. Rule Zero can be used to help the game.
2. Rule Zero can be used to help the game.
I think that puts me in at least partial agreement with everyone in this thread, and in substantial agreement with close to everyone.

We could have a productive discussion on the good and bad applications of Rule Zero, since I'm pretty sure that we all agree that the DM can introduce a monster not in the rules, and we all agree that "Rocks fall; everybody dies" is unfair.

But right now, nobody is arguing against the other side's actual views.

So here's my suggestion. Let's stop discussing hypotheticals and post actual game situations we've seen in which Rule Zero actually helped, or hurt, the flow of the game.

Here's one: I had planned an encounter with Giant Spiders. This was going to be a tough encounter for a low-level party. So I put the miniatures on the table - and that's when I found out that one of the players had a spider phobia. So suddenly they were wimp spiders with minimal hit points, they missed their first saving throw, and the minis were taken off the table.

That's Rule Zero, done right. Any more actual examples of Rule Zero, done right or wrong?

snoopy13a
2012-06-09, 10:26 AM
Aright, if there was a feat...(or similarly costed option for non D&D players) that gave you immunity to rule zero...would you take it? When and why?

What would be the entire scope of the change? Would gamemasters be able to invent rules in situations where the current rules are silent? Would gamemasters be able to interpret rules if the rule on point is vague or ambigious in that case? Would gamemasters be able to decide which rule applies if two rules appear to be in conflict?

GolemsVoice
2012-06-09, 09:07 PM
So here's my suggestion. Let's stop discussing hypotheticals and post actual game situations we've seen in which Rule Zero actually helped, or hurt, the flow of the game.

As somebody else in this thread said, when we're playing D&D, we like to come up with crazy moves right out of action movies, like swing from chandeliers, rolling barrels into the enemy, whatever. Sometimes, there are just no rules covering this situation, and so the DM tells us what checks he thinks are apropriate and we roll.

Totally Guy
2012-06-10, 01:03 AM
Sometimes, there are just no rules covering this situation, and so the DM tells us what checks he thinks are apropriate and we roll.

Is that not the existing rule? In 4th edition at least I think this is covered by the contents of page 42 .

TuggyNE
2012-06-10, 01:43 AM
Is that not the existing rule? In 4th edition at least I think this is covered by the contents of page 42 .

In 3.x it's known as Rule Zero, yes. That's the discussion.

Totally Guy
2012-06-10, 02:04 AM
In 3.x it's known as Rule Zero, yes. That's the discussion.

If I can open the book and point at a rule then it's not rule zero as the rule exists. That's kind of trivial.

Edit: The rules for what Golem's Voice is describing in 3.5 are found on page 6 of the DMG.

Drascin
2012-06-10, 02:09 AM
The very idea is absurd. It's like asking me if I want immunity to eating.

Bit Fiend
2012-06-10, 04:45 AM
I wouldn't. Too risky having the DM come up with "level appropriate" encounters from MMII, just to show that he is perfectly capable of kicking your rearside by RAW.

Kane0
2012-06-10, 04:50 AM
Nope.

Purely because Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun are derived and rely on Rule Zero.

oxinabox
2012-06-10, 09:13 AM
Amber Diceless doesn't even HAVE a GM to use rule zero with.

Ahaahaahaaaaaa haah haah No.
You'll find you are wrong there.
I've GMed Amber Diceless.
There are places in the rulebook that specifically call for the Narator to do things, for example run the Auction
and handle NPCs. (Narator is another word for GM),

Not only does Amber have a GM,
it is a narative based game, resolving whether a thing happens or not is purely by the GM, with hints and suggestions from the rules.

It also explictly enshrines rule zero, calling it the "Goldern Rule"

Either your thinking of a different system, or i (and the other GM who I play with) have been seriously screwing up.

---
I come from the school that says the GM can do what he wants,
The GM should do what ever he (and the group) feel makes the game most fun.

Jay R
2012-06-10, 03:56 PM
Is that not the existing rule? In 4th edition at least I think this is covered by the contents of page 42 .

Yes. it's the existing rule, and yes, it is often called Rule Zero by the fans. Some people do not like this existing rule, so we are discussing it.

Totally Guy
2012-06-10, 04:33 PM
For those requiring definition of what rule zero is, rule zero is the DM's permission to override the stated rules.

Jay R: We've got to stick to definitions. Tyndmyr stated a good one at the start. I think it's a good definition and Tyndmyr is a pretty smart dude.

I'm saying that the situation described by Golem's Voice is on page 6 in 3.5 and 42 if it was 4th.

I'm all for beating up on D&D, but you've got to give it credit where it is due.

Page 6 says "Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance."

That's the rule. Rule zero is when the GM overrides the rules.



One of my own tales: I once played in a game of Mouse Guard where my character failed a roll and in the rules it says that a failed roll will either introduce a twist to the situation or I get what I want but also pick up a bad status condition along with it.

The GM decided that I would get both. I'd fail, the situation would twist and I'd get a detrimental condition.

I was annoyed at this. I was bought into playing the game as the book described it. I wasn't bought into playing this other game that the GM wanted to play but had got me interested in playing by telling me that we were playing Mouse Guard. I called the GM out for this.

Jay R
2012-06-10, 06:38 PM
Jay R: We've got to stick to definitions. Tyndmyr stated a good one at the start.
<snip>
Rule zero is when the GM overrides the rules.

Go look again. Tyndmyr gave no definition at all at the start of this thread. And for good reason - rule zero is already defined, totally independent of this thread. We can no more define what Rule Zero is than we can define who the DM is.

Here's the definition from tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleZero). Rule Zero is that the DM is the final authority, even over the rules. In the Third Edition DMG, it states "You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power. Use it wisely. This book will show you how."

That's what Rule Zero has meant, for decades before Tyndmyr started this thread.


One of my own tales: I once played in a game of Mouse Guard where my character failed a roll and in the rules it says that a failed roll will either introduce a twist to the situation or I get what I want but also pick up a bad status condition along with it.

The GM decided that I would get both. I'd fail, the situation would twist and I'd get a detrimental condition.

I was annoyed at this. I was bought into playing the game as the book described it. I wasn't bought into playing this other game that the GM wanted to play but had got me interested in playing by telling me that we were playing Mouse Guard. I called the GM out for this.

The problem here is not Rule Zero. The problem is that he didn't use it wisely. Rule Zero is for fixing a specific rule that works for many situations but not for the current one, as when a DM decided that Fireball didn't work underwater, even though the rules didn't say so (OD&D, in 1975).

Tyndmyr
2012-06-11, 06:25 AM
Without the DM being the final arbiter, the game world is just flat out mush.

Reality is not determined by consensus, or, for that matter, a vote.

It is in FATE games. Ever played Dresden Files? Creating the world is literally part of the game, and something that all the players participate in.

So, reality can indeed be determined by consensus.


What would be the entire scope of the change? Would gamemasters be able to invent rules in situations where the current rules are silent? Would gamemasters be able to interpret rules if the rule on point is vague or ambigious in that case? Would gamemasters be able to decide which rule applies if two rules appear to be in conflict?

Well, you'd be playing by RAW + any houserules accepted by everyone(in practical games, most groups have a number of house rules that everyone is ok with, and basically always uses. Many of them don't even realize that these are houserules). That would mean no new interpretations imposed by the GM, or new rules that are simply circumventions of existing rules.

It does not preclude the possibility of everyone agreeing on something new, though. That's not rule zero at all. I also would not have any problem with the DM inventing something to cover a situation the original rules simply do not cover whatsoever.


The very idea is absurd. It's like asking me if I want immunity to eating.

This is probably already a thing in 3.5. Warforged would be an example, yes?



You'll find you are wrong there.
.....
Either your thinking of a different system, or i (and the other GM who I play with) have been seriously screwing up.

Hmm, I might well be thinking of a different system, it's been rather a while.

Anyway, GMless systems seem to fall into one of two camps. Either it's a purely mechanically run thing, or it spreads DM duties around to players. They're not especially common, but they do exist, and certainly rule zero isn't really a thing without a GM.

7th Sea is an example of a game that could fairly easily do away with rule zero, but that still has it. It's got a decent method of narrative control in drama dice that could, with a few modifications, easily handle the sorts of things that rule zero exists for. In addition, the mechanics are very open-ended, so they apply pretty universally. It's not a perfect system, mind you, but it's one in which rule zero could be swiftly ditched as unnecessary.

Saph
2012-06-11, 06:33 AM
It is in FATE games. Ever played Dresden Files? Creating the world is literally part of the game, and something that all the players participate in.

So, reality can indeed be determined by consensus.

That's . . . really not how the FATE system works.

We're in a Dresden Files game at the moment. Yes, the players get to take part in creating the world, and yes, they get to spend Fate points and make declarations, but when it comes right down to it the DM still has final authority over what actually happens in play. Calling that "consensus" is really misleading.

We rotate DMs and everyone gets a turn at running the game, but that's not "reality by consensus". It's still a dictatorship – it's just that it's a voluntary dictatorship with a rotating dictator.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-11, 07:04 AM
That's . . . really not how the FATE system works.

We're in a Dresden Files game at the moment. Yes, the players get to take part in creating the world, and yes, they get to spend Fate points and make declarations, but when it comes right down to it the DM still has final authority over what actually happens in play. Calling that "consensus" is really misleading.

We rotate DMs and everyone gets a turn at running the game, but that's not "reality by consensus". It's still a dictatorship – it's just that it's a voluntary dictatorship with a rotating dictator.

The DM is going to be coming up with plots, yeah, and will generally have MORE latitude in terms of narrative control, but I wouldn't describe it as a dictatorship, nor would I describe it as a system that relies notably on rule zero.

The fact remains that creation of the world IS determining reality to a large extent, and Dresden Files is very player-inclusive on that score. It's not something all games do, true, but it certainly is a possible thing, wouldn't you agree?


Edit: On the side-topic of GM-less things...anyone tried Mythic GM Emulator (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13308.phtml) or something similar?

NichG
2012-06-11, 03:01 PM
7th Sea is an example of a game that could fairly easily do away with rule zero, but that still has it. It's got a decent method of narrative control in drama dice that could, with a few modifications, easily handle the sorts of things that rule zero exists for. In addition, the mechanics are very open-ended, so they apply pretty universally. It's not a perfect system, mind you, but it's one in which rule zero could be swiftly ditched as unnecessary.

I'm going to have to disagree here, in that there's a difference between the ebb and flow of game uses of Rule Zero (which Drama Dice cover somewhat) and determination of ill-defined situations, culling or modification of bad rules, etc, which they don't really do.

For example, I was playing in a pirate campaign and we encountered the ship combat rules. They're almost utterly unusable, and the GM basically ended up throwing them out in favor of a more freeform narration of the situation.

There are also lots of things in 7th Sea with pseudo non-mechanical interactions with players. For example, the rules for full Sidhe are basically 'these creatures can do whatever the GM needs or wants them to be able to do'. While that is a rule, I'd say its very 'rule zero' in its character in writing a blank check for anything to happen. Similarly, the Porte succubi, the Schattenman, etc.

Edog
2012-06-12, 05:06 AM
Nope, it wouldn't protect me from the giant rocks that just got rule-zero'd to fall on my head. Although it would force the GM to actually roll the damage, rather than just saying "You die..."

The GM is supposed to use rule zero to make the game more fun, and I don't want to interfere with that. And if they don't use it for that purpose, something has gone very wrong with the game.

And on to the discussion about games without rule zero...

It seems to me that if there is a GM, running the game world and controlling the NPCs, there is a rule zero. If there's someone who can arbitrarily declare that this NPC says that, or this event happens, what is that but an application of rule zero? Certainly, some systems use it more heavily than others, but as long as someone is running the game, it's there.

That said, it's possible to have a game without rule zero, if all the players have (roughly) equal power. This can happen on forum RP's where each user controls one character, and the game world is built in a way that all the players agree on--basically, reality by consensus, as some earlier posters mentioned. This makes world building and maintenance more demanding, since everything needs to be discussed, and causes problems when players disagree over some aspect of the world, but it certainly can work.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 06:59 AM
I'm going to have to disagree here, in that there's a difference between the ebb and flow of game uses of Rule Zero (which Drama Dice cover somewhat) and determination of ill-defined situations, culling or modification of bad rules, etc, which they don't really do.

Drama dice are an excellent alternative mechanic to rule zero. They allow you to affect the narrative when it's really important...but place soft limits on it, and offer players a similar opportunity. The game works best when you throw them around like mad.


For example, I was playing in a pirate campaign and we encountered the ship combat rules. They're almost utterly unusable, and the GM basically ended up throwing them out in favor of a more freeform narration of the situation.

The problem isn't that the rules are bad so much as that there's three entirely different combat subsystems. It's not uncommon for a GM to simply not be familiar with either the mass combat or naval rules.

Also, the naval rules basically require a map to make sense.


There are also lots of things in 7th Sea with pseudo non-mechanical interactions with players. For example, the rules for full Sidhe are basically 'these creatures can do whatever the GM needs or wants them to be able to do'. While that is a rule, I'd say its very 'rule zero' in its character in writing a blank check for anything to happen. Similarly, the Porte succubi, the Schattenman, etc.

Porte Succubi have very simple rules, as does the Schattenman. It's true that the player may well not know all of these rules, as 7th Sea definitely has much secret knowledge, but what they can do mechanically is absolutely well defined. They are immensely powerful, yes, but that's not at all the same as rule zero.

Sidhe are a slightly worse example. They are defined well in some respects, but the books to urge DMs to use wild amounts of rule zero with them. This advice is best if ignored entirely. The Sidhe do not lack for power when using their book stats and traits, but adding a giant helping of fiat to them just makes them an annoying deus ex machina. This sort of advice is exactly the sort that need to be removed to make 7th Sea work much better.


Edog, I've played such games before, including one that was DMless. I've since decided that those games are not for me, but they do appear popular with some people.

Drascin
2012-06-12, 10:29 AM
This is probably already a thing in 3.5. Warforged would be an example, yes?

No, I don't mean immunity to hunger. I mean immunity to eating. It's something to which the idea of "personal immunity" doesn't apply, and even if it did, immunity to something that is most frequently beneficial and usually necessary to my continued existence strikes me as silly.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 10:34 AM
No, I don't mean immunity to hunger. I mean immunity to eating. It's something to which the idea of "personal immunity" doesn't apply, and even if it did, immunity to something that is most frequently beneficial and usually necessary to my continued existence strikes me as silly.

How does a warforged eat?

Immunity to eating without immunity to hunger is probably doable(paralysis should suffice), though of course not beneficial.

Saph
2012-06-12, 11:02 AM
Edog, I've played such games before, including one that was DMless. I've since decided that those games are not for me, but they do appear popular with some people.

Here's the thing. You can do reality by consensus, but the trouble is that you need consensus/discussion on everything. It's very slow and can easily bog down.

In real-life situations, when you have a set of decisions that affect a group and need to be made regularly and efficiently, the usual solution is to assign a person to be in charge of them. And that's what a DM is – the person that the rest of the group (implicitly or explicitly) delegates world-management duties to.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-12, 01:05 PM
Here's the thing. You can do reality by consensus, but the trouble is that you need consensus/discussion on everything. It's very slow and can easily bog down.

In real-life situations, when you have a set of decisions that affect a group and need to be made regularly and efficiently, the usual solution is to assign a person to be in charge of them. And that's what a DM is – the person that the rest of the group (implicitly or explicitly) delegates world-management duties to.

Absolutely. Either is possible, some may find one preferable. Or, someone may find a combination of either of these with significant rules to decrease necessary decision making to be preferable.

I was merely arguing against those who believed non-DM-centric ways impossible.

Bit Fiend
2012-06-13, 04:23 AM
Nope, it wouldn't protect me from the giant rocks that just got rule-zero'd to fall on my head. Although it would force the GM to actually roll the damage, rather than just saying "You die..."

Actually, it could... if you're playing a Twice Betrayer, Jemini Zero's Alita or something similar that cannot be killed by all the rocks in the world. But the fact that you have a Twice Betrayer in the first place would indicate that your DM isn't too strict on Rule Zero anyway...