Opinion: Rule Zero Is Not A House Rule.

[ShaneMRoth]

My definition of a house rule:


A standing rule that mechanically suspends or replaces an existing game mechanic; or

A standing rule that creates a new game mechanic.


A standing rule is a ruling that functions as the baseline rule in the absence of DM discretion.

Rule Zero (DM discretion) gives the DM the standing authority to create house rules, but that doesn't make it a house rule. The notion that DM discretion is a house rule assumes that the game was designed to be played without DM discretion or that the application of DM discretion always comes in conflict with the so-called Rules As Written.

Here are some actual rulings I have made that I consider House Rules...


No Evil PCs

At the start of a campaign, particularly with players who don't know each other very well, I need a group of characters to work together to solve external problems. Evil PCs tend to complicate things. Also, in my experience, most players lack the roleplaying chops necessary to play an evil PC in a manner that doesn't violate the Fun Covenant. So, I start from here.

The SRD already places explicit limitations on player choices of spells and classes. This rule suspends mechanical access to systems in the game in a way neither mentioned nor implied in the SRD.

It is a standing rule. It is applied to all players, and is only suspended at DM discretion.


A Player Shall In No Way Directly Interfere With Another Player's Enjoyment Of Her Character.

I've been in games where players have decided to form Reservior Dogs Flash Mobs and go full murderhobo on each other. And the first clue that the DM gets... is when the players start rolling initiative on each other. Usually over something trivial, and always when the party was in the field. Like immediately after they put a flaming pile of dog poop outside of the Lich King's castle and rang the doorbell. I was having none of that in my campaigns.

Players don't get to materially interfere with other players' characters. This includes attacks, grappling, turning to stone, non-lethal damage, theft, pocket picking, anything that... is the DM's job.

If it looks to me like a player is taking some passive-aggressive action that will adversely affect another player's ability to play her character, I disallow it.

This rule prevents a player's character from making an attack on someone standing right next to him. Clearly a suspension of neary all game mechanics.

This is a standing rule. Applies to all players, and is only suspendable at the DM's discretion.

I have never had to enforce this rule. I have never had occassion to suspend it. Once players realized that the safest place to be in the campaign setting was next to the other player characters, that rule enforced itself.


I submitted both of these House Rules in writing to the players before they even created characters. A Rule doesn't have to be written down to be a House Rule, but it is a good practice.


Here is a ruling I have made that I don't consider to be a House Rule...

The adventurers were in a city and some thugs made the mistake of trying to mug them.

I wanted to give the players an incentive to not go full murderhobo on them. So, I made the following ruling:

"If you kill any of these thugs, I will not award any experience points for this encounter. If you defeat them without killing any of them, you get a full experience point reward."

At first, the players looked at me as if I'd just stolen their lunch money.

Then I said, "These aren't orcs in a dungeon. You're in a city. With laws and [bleep]. And this is your first day in this city. I'm not going to give you a Scooby Snack for committing mass murder in a public street in front of everyone and their Dutch uncle."

They wiped the floor with those thugs. But they didn't kill any of them.

This application of Rule Zero doesn't qualify as a House Rule. It doesn't suspend or replace any existing game mechanic in the SRD. The DMG declares that the DM has wide discretion on how experience points are awarded. In 3.x, creatures are not Experience Point pinatas.


What distinctions, if any, do you make between Rule Zero and a House Rule?

[Segev]

Rule Zero itself is not a house rule. Anything created under it by definition is; it simply is not "cheating" because Rule Zero says it isn't.

A "house rule," by definition, is anything that is unique to your table/house when you run. "Unique" being a poor word, here, as others could adopt similar or identical house rules, but I'm drawing a blank on a better one.

You can have "house rules" that are still within the bounds of the RAW where the RAW are ambiguous enough to require a DM ruling; this happens with enough frequency as to be in every game run, ever, to some degree.

The big thing is that the RAW really don't trump house rules; in actual play, house rules win because of Rule Zero and the DM being the final arbiter of what happens at his table.

I think you are getting frustrated because you're reading refutations of your house rules as not being within the RAW as criticisms of their balance, or as resistance to the idea that you should have such rules. They aren't. When people have issue with your house rules for reasons, they'll tell you so.

If you don't insist that they're the RAW, you'll find some people agree that your house rules are a good way to handle it, and others will think you're stifling your players or punishing certain playstyles. That's the nature of house rules: they tend to work for some groups but not others (and those others likely have different house rules, because of it).


The RAW are useful for theoretical discussion, and, when dealing with helping people design something in the absense of known house rules, they're a useful baseline. You'll notice that when we help with practical character design and optimization, a lot of the advice floats in a cloud of "ask your DM..." or "suggest to your DM that this house rule be in effect" or "see if your DM is using the RAW or a house rule in this area," because a LOT of hte RAW are controversial or have strange, unintuitive effects that can be cool...or can be problematic, depending on the table.

[Elricaltovilla]

Are you on some kind of mission dude? You keep posting these threads about how RAW is wrong and bad and stuff, then arguing with people about it who don't even disagree with you.

Nobody on this forum thinks rule 0 is a house rule. It's part of the game, but its also part of the game none of us have any control over.

I don't know why you're trying to accomplish here, but really, it isn't going to do much.

[erok0809]

That example at the end seems like you railroading the players' characters into doing what you wanted, instead of what the players wanted through making options not worth it at all outside of the story. Instead of you letting your players play their characters how they wanted to, and needing to deal with the consequences of their actions, you decided to simply not allow them to act the way they wanted. I wouldn't appreciate that as a player; I would much rather act according to my will and deal with what happens after story-wise than have my will effectively taken away from me because the DM didn't like what I was going to do.

In regard to your actual question, I view Rule 0 and house rules as basically the same thing. The DM has purview over all of the rules. However, if a given rule is not written in any book, whether it's because the DM changed an existing rule or made one up, it is a house rule, by definition.

[Geddy2112]

Rule zero is far from a house rule, unless the DM/house is the same person everytime. My group has multiple DM's with rule zero in place, but we have several house rules. Namely, a natural 1 is always a failure, no matter what you rolled or any modifiers. We play that way regardless of who is DM. Sometimes we disagree on how to rule a situation because most of our group has been DM at one point, and then we default to rule zero. The DM is right then, but that ruling rarely becomes house rule.

We generally call rule zero "rule of cool and rule of fun" if its fun/cool, let it happen unless it would otherwise be detrimental.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
I think you are getting frustrated because you're reading refutations of your house rules as not being within the RAW as criticisms of their balance, or as resistance to the idea that you should have such rules. They aren't. When people have issue with your house rules for reasons, they'll tell you so.
...


I'm confused actually.

In another thread I started, the thread drifted to the matter of Rule Zero and House Rules.

That matter sparked my interest. Where does Rule Zero end and a House Rule begin?

I know what my understanding of a House Rule is, as stated above.

I'm sure my understanding differs from a number of people, not just you.

I actually find it helpful to get other perspectives, even if don't end up sharing those perspectives.

As far as the matter of RAW... well, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."

[erok0809]

When I say a "house rule," that is a rule written or changed by a given DM. I run games with the same group, but we have different "house rules" depending on who in the group is the DM for a given game. Overall, Rule 0 says that the DM can change or make up any rule he likes, and if the players want to play in that DM's game, they abide by that rule, even though it isn't written in any sourcebook. Any rule written or changed using Rule 0 is a "house rule," by definition.

[Keltest]

I'm confused actually.

In another thread I started, the thread drifted to the matter of Rule Zero and House Rules.

That matter sparked my interest. Where does Rule Zero end and a House Rule begin?

I know what my understanding of a House Rule is, as stated above.

I'm sure my understanding differs from a number of people, not just you.

I actually find it helpful to get other perspectives, even if don't end up sharing those perspectives.

As far as the matter of RAW... well, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."

Rule Zero basically says that "House rules are fine. Have fun, silly people!"

Any distinction between rule 0ing something and houseruling something is semantic.

[Segev]

A "house rule" is any rule that you have at your table which would not be inherently assumed to be true at another without the DM saying it is so.

The RAW are the rules that, in general, will be assumed to be true until the DM specifies otherwise for his table, because they're what's written in the rule books and are considered the default when the only information you have is "we're playing the game that uses these rule books."

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Please stop posting threads solely to antagonize a specific play preference. Furthermore, please do not restart closed threads.

Thread closed.