PDA

View Full Version : Should rule 0 ever be bought up.



Emperor Demonking
2007-11-17, 12:04 PM
When debating something on this forum should rule 0 ever be bought up?

Green Bean
2007-11-17, 12:17 PM
Honestly, it all depends on the context. Theoretical optimization challenges (the pun-puns, the Omnificers, the d2 crusaders) should cite Rule 0 very sparingly as that is not the point of the exercise. Advice for builds that are going to see actual play, on the other hand, should use it because it will have to pass the DM gauntlet.

Of course, the problem with Rule 0 is that it's so variable. Some DM's play 100% RAW, others play it so house ruled that it only barely resembles it.

Mr. Friendly
2007-11-17, 12:21 PM
I agree. Theoretical discussions; Rule 0 is essentially meaningless.

Sure, I *could* buy a 5cp 10' ladder and break it apart and sell 2 10' poles for 2.5sp each - no DM (who was paying attention) would let it happen though.

But when someone says "My character X wants to do Y so I can get Z in this game I am playing in...."... then saying "Your DM will never let that fly" is valid.

Woot Spitum
2007-11-17, 12:43 PM
When debating the RAW, bringing up Rule 0 is a fallacy. RAW discussions deal with what CAN be done, not what SHOULD be done.

Matthew
2007-11-17, 12:47 PM
Rule 0 can be brought up whenever the RAW discussion reaches the limits of productivity. If someone wishes only to discuss things in terms of RAW, then Rule 0 should not be brought up, as you are talking at cross purposes. Here are two statements:

1) D&D is stupid
2) D&D, by the RAW, is stupid

The first statement admits Rule 0, the second excludes it.

Morty
2007-11-17, 12:55 PM
But when someone says "My character X wants to do Y so I can get Z in this game I am playing in...."... then saying "Your DM will never let that fly" is valid.

Not really, as DM may very well not notice or not care that something's wrong with what player wants to do.
Rule 0 can be brought up, but only in really extreme cases when some build is blatantly abusing the system or some rule is just plain stupic, and doesn't make the bad rules good even then. That, and sometimes applying Rule 0 may not have anything to do with balance or logic- some DMs ban or change things because they don't fit their campaign.

Vva70
2007-11-17, 01:52 PM
It's definitely a very situational thing. I agree that for the most part, rule 0 is irrelevant when discussing theory, and very relevant when discussing practice. More than anything, though, its relevance depends on one question: is application of rule 0 a known quantity in a given discussion?

If a player is asking for advice or whatever for a given campaign with known houserules, then rule 0 should be applied insofar as it is used to generate those houserules. In the same vein, a DM might ask "would it be balanced to make XYZ change?" Again, rule 0 should be applied as far as the changes go.

The discussions in which use of rule 0 is complained about are frequently those where its application is an unknown or variable quantity. In a discussion that is not meant to apply to one specific game group, no application of rule 0 should be presented as the way things work. That doesn't mean that specific applications of rule 0 shouldn't be suggested, but rather that the assumption should be that such applications are possibilities rather than actualities. It's also best if the person making the suggestion realize that it is probable that his or her suggestion will not actually be used by the majority. The same applies to discussions revolving around a specific game group, when dealing with an application of rule 0 that is not currently being used by the group.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-17, 06:54 PM
I agree. Theoretical discussions; Rule 0 is essentially meaningless.

Sure, I *could* buy a 5cp 10' ladder and break it apart and sell 2 10' poles for 2.5sp each - no DM (who was paying attention) would let it happen though.

Technically, though, wouldn't you need Rule Zero to state that the trick worked? By RAW, a broken ladder is a broken ladder. You can't even sell it for scrap.

ZebulonCrispi
2007-11-17, 07:27 PM
So, uh.

What's Rule 0?

Dhavaer
2007-11-17, 07:38 PM
So, uh.

What's Rule 0?

'The DM is always right', or 'What the DM says, goes'.

F.L.
2007-11-17, 07:48 PM
For instance, by rule 0, in a campaign I dm, breaking a ladder could result in 2 angry large constictor snakes and a centaur.

MobiusKlein
2007-11-17, 07:58 PM
The first rule of Rule 0 is don't talk about Rule 0!

But really, who doesn't start a game with some house rules explained. That's rule 0.

When players memorize the Monster Manuel, and the DM switches the DR type on some monster the players have never seen (and don't have the skills.), that's rule 0.

When a player casts Wish and asks for something 'special', the DM uses Rule 0.

They just don't call it Rule 0; It's just called 'being the DM'.

StickMan
2007-11-17, 08:02 PM
When debating something on this forum should rule 0 ever be bought up?

The DM is always right. Except when your saying I'm wrong. Wait OP is my DM, crud should I say that in one of his threads oh well to late now. Hey am I thought typing....

TheOOB
2007-11-17, 08:34 PM
When talking about game rules and RAW, rule 0 should only be brought up to show how absurdly broken something is eg. Yes, and Pun-Pun works in RAW too, but rule 0 means almost no DMs would ever allow it.

When talking about your game, rule 0 should be brought up at times when its more important to continue the game then get into a rules dispute eg. We've been arguing about this for 10 minutes, lets just do it my way for now, and figure it out later.

Jack Mann
2007-11-17, 10:06 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with bringing up Rule 0. But it shouldn't generally be used as an argument in rules discussions. It's fine to say, "but a good houserule for this problem is to limit the combo to once per combat," or "my DM uses FriendlyNinja87's drowning rules instead." It is not okay to say, "this isn't broken because a DM doesn't allow real ultimate power to stack with moon mojo," or "the uberlord class isn't overpowered because my DM limits the existence of the frunctious snodballs that power its derring-do ability." Rule 0 only becomes a problem when it is invoked as an argument for balance. Clearly, if something needs to be fixed, it's broken. That a fix is possible does not mean it isn't broken, since by that argument, any RPG is balanced (though how much fixing a given RPG would need varies).

Matthew
2007-11-17, 10:14 PM
...but arguably Rule 0 is all about balance, being as it exists to take care of any unforseen balance problems in the system (which will always exist). What it is not, is a reason, from a system point of view, why something evidently broken is not broken or doesn't need to be fixed.

Aquillion
2007-11-17, 10:15 PM
In this forum? It depends on the context. There are all sorts of discussions, after all.

Some discussions amount to "What should a DM Rule Zero?"

Others are theoretical optimization, either just for fun or to show how broken something is. Bringing rule Zero into those is missing the point completely.

But what you're really asking about is the vs. threads, of course. For those it's tricker -- can I use PAO and celerity and gate cheese? Extra-action tricks? Overall, if the discussion is going to happen at all, you have to ignore Rule Zero for those, too, but when one ability or spell is totally broken it can make sense to ask if a vs. question can be resolved without it. (Can the wizard win without relying on Polymorph Any Object to become a golden dragon? Etc.)

Raum
2007-11-17, 10:18 PM
I've resisted posting most of the day but finally broke down. "Rule 0" should not exist. No single person should be given game changing (game, not story or situation) fiat. After all, every gamer will agree to outlaw / avoid / disallow game breaking abuses once the abuse has been used against them if not before. So why should the rules enshrine a single "master" as being the ultimate arbiter of what is legal instead of the group of players? If you're all playing the same game, the rules apply equally. Anytime the rules are changed, so is the game.

I should note, it's not changing the rules that I object to - as long as the rules are known and agreed to by all it's good. What I object to is unilaterally changing the rules on the fly. It's silly. Would you allow a pitcher to change the rules of baseball mid-game?

Aquillion
2007-11-17, 10:23 PM
I've resisted posting most of the day but finally broke down. "Rule 0" should not exist. No single person should be given game changing (game, not story or situation) fiat. After all, every gamer will agree to outlaw / avoid / disallow game breaking abuses once the abuse has been used against them if not before. So why should the rules enshrine a single "master" as being the ultimate arbiter of what is legal instead of the group of players? If you're all playing the same game, the rules apply equally. Anytime the rules are changed, so is the game.

I should note, it's not changing the rules that I object to - as long as the rules are known and agreed to by all it's good. What I object to is unilaterally changing the rules on the fly. It's silly. Would you allow a pitcher to change the rules of baseball mid-game?Um, have you actually played D&D? Ever?

D&D is not a game of "DM vs players", it's a game where the DM tries to create a world, then let the players win inside it without making it too obvious. The rules are only there to make it easier for the DM to run the world consistantly; they're not supposed to get in the way. That's the real point of Rule Zero.

If the DM is getting into arguments with the players, it's usually a sign that something is seriously wrong with the group dynamic (whether it's the DM or one or some or all of the players or everyone that's at fault). That's when the players need to sit back and reach a general understanding on how they want the game to go -- the DM needs to ask if they want players to be balanced against each other, if they want reasonable or difficult challenges, if they want to follow WBL and CR strictly or just have the DM wing it and throw everything at them, etc. The DM shouldn't be constantly explictly invoking Rule Zero if the group as a whole is doing things well, but it's a basic part of keeping the game running.

Sightless
2007-11-17, 10:24 PM
The first rule of Rule 0 is don't talk about Rule 0!

I see what you did there!

Matthew
2007-11-17, 10:25 PM
Ah, but Raum, sometimes people just don't know the rules of the game and when they encounter some broken element for the first time, they need to 'change' the rules of the game. The PHB and DMG often seem to assume that the DM knows the rules of the game better than the Players, which is probably why Rule 0 is confined to him. That said, Rule 0 is just 'Optional Rule X'.


D&D is not a game of "DM vs players", it's a game where the DM tries to create a world, then let the players win inside it without making it too obvious.

Well, that's one approach.

Aquillion versus Raum, FIGHT!

Raum
2007-11-17, 10:41 PM
Um, have you actually played D&D? Ever?Yep.


D&D is not a game of "DM vs players", it's a game where the DM tries to create a world, then let the players win inside it without making it too obvious. Rule 0 is the cause of many adversarial game relationships. Just read a random selection of threads here for a few months. :-/


The rules are only there to make it easier for the DM to run the world consistantly; they're not supposed to get in the way. That's the real point of Rule Zero.I disagree. As written, rule 0 is about control. Any group who actually wants to game together can agree on a set of rules.


If the DM is getting into arguments with the players, it's usually a sign that something is seriously wrong with the group dynamic (whether it's the DM or one or some or all of the players or everyone that's at fault). That's when the players need to sit back and reach a general understanding on how they want the game to go -- the DM needs to ask if they want players to be balanced against each other, if they want reasonable or difficult challenges, if they want to follow WBL and CR strictly or just have the DM wing it and throw everything at them, etc. The DM shouldn't be constantly explictly invoking Rule Zero if the group as a whole is doing things well, but it's a basic part of keeping the game running.I agree with the comment I've highlighted...it's exactly what I was saying. As long as you have that agreement, rule 0 is superfluous.


Ah, but Raum, sometimes people just don't know the rules of the game and when they encounter some broken element for the first time, they need to 'change' the rules of the game. The PHB and DMG often seem to assume that the DM knows the rules of the game better than the Players, which is probably why Rule 0 is confined to him. That said, Rule 0 is just 'Optional Rule X'.Lack of rule knowledge is not the same as lack of consistency. To be perfectly clear, it's making arbitrary rule changes unilaterally that I find objectionable.


Aquillion versus Raum, FIGHT!Fight? Can't we all just get along?! :smallwink:

Jack Mann
2007-11-17, 10:44 PM
...but arguably Rule 0 is all about balance, being as it exists to take care of any unforseen balance problems in the system (which will always exist). What it is not, is a reason, from a system point of view, why something evidently broken is not broken or doesn't need to be fixed.

Exactly. It is a solution to balance issues, not an argument for whether something is balanced or not.

Matthew
2007-11-17, 11:00 PM
Lack of rule knowledge is not the same as lack of consistency. To be perfectly clear, it's making arbitrary rule changes unilaterally that I find objectionable.

Fair enough.


Fight? Can't we all just get along?! :smallwink:

I would hope so, but if not, there's always a D&D PBP Duel!


Exactly. It is a solution to balance issues, not an argument for whether something is balanced or not.

Good, good. Then we're in agreement and there is no need for us to duel... :smallbiggrin:

Jothki
2007-11-17, 11:07 PM
Rule 0 should be brought up when discussing the advantages/flaws of 2nd Edition, and completely ignored when dicussing the advantages/flaws of 3rd Edition.

Vva70
2007-11-17, 11:08 PM
Lack of rule knowledge is not the same as lack of consistency. To be perfectly clear, it's making arbitrary rule changes unilaterally that I find objectionable.

I agree that arbitrary rule changes that the players don't agree with are a bad use of rule 0.

The way I see it, the main point of having it as a rule is to allow for quick adjudication of differing rule interpretations, or other issues of disagreement. Certainly, getting the gaming group to agree on an issue is the ultimate solution, but is it really a good idea to stall a game in progress every time an issue pops up? Rule 0 allows the DM to say "okay, it works this way, now let's move on." If the issue is important enough to the disagreeing parties, they can debate it after the game session.

Rule Zero As Commonly Understood: "What the DM says, goes."

Rule Zero As Should Be Used: "The DM may adjudicate all rules issues, so long as in doing so the game is made more fun for the group."

Rule 0 isn't there to make the DM feel powerful. It exists to give rules debates a stop command so that they don't interrupt the game.

Raum
2007-11-17, 11:41 PM
The way I see it, the main point of having it as a rule is to allow for quick adjudication of differing rule interpretations, or other issues of disagreement. Certainly, getting the gaming group to agree on an issue is the ultimate solution, but is it really a good idea to stall a game in progress every time an issue pops up? Rule 0 allows the DM to say "okay, it works this way, now let's move on." If the issue is important enough to the disagreeing parties, they can debate it after the game session.The problem here is simple - when does interpretation become change? Frankly, D&D's rules can be obtuse enough to confuse anyone at some point. But why is it cannon to give control to a single player rather than call for a vote? Or some other resolution mechanic? It could be random for that matter, still arbitrary but not unilateral. Of course the best solution would be to clarify the rules as written...though that might cut out half the threads on these boards. :smallbiggrin:


Rule Zero As Commonly Understood: "What the DM says, goes."

Rule Zero As Should Be Used: "The DM may adjudicate all rules issues, so long as in doing so the game is made more fun for the group."If the second method is desired, why not make it the rule? Say Rule 0 becomes "The DM judges all rule issues unless overruled by a majority of the players." But even then I wonder if it's really necessary to put said rule in print. After all, most allow use of loans or collateral in Monopoly even though it's not in the rules.


Rule 0 isn't there to make the DM feel powerful. It exists to give rules debates a stop command so that they don't interrupt the game.I agree, that's the intent. But if it really takes that muck longer to reach a consensus...well either the rules are unnecessarily obtuse or the players are intentionally adversarial.

Desaril
2007-11-18, 12:34 AM
@ Raum- I agree that D20 (or any other system) could use votes or random determination to choose between alternative rule interpretations (or even changes), but they don't. The game assumes (I would say requires) a Game Master to adjudicate the situations not clearly resolved by reference to the books. The players get their opportunity for input when they choose the GM or choose to play the GM's game.

Its like a democratic republic: individual citizens don't vote on every law before the legislature; we vote for representatives and they vote on the law. If you don't like the representative, you don't re-elect them. Likewise, you "vote" for the GM by playing and you surrender to their authority. If you don't like their rulings, don't play in their game.

Of course, most GMs allow for in-game input on their adjudications. In those situations, Rule 0 works as AAV70 suggested; it provides a mechanism for avoiding impasse and developing a speedy resolution until a more permanent solution (perhaps a rule change) is found.

Karsh
2007-11-18, 12:53 AM
For my opinion, see my sig.

DM Fiat is very important a lot of the time, but since much of the discussion that takes place here is theoretical, it's a fallacy, as Woot Spitum stated.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-18, 01:04 AM
The problem here is simple - when does interpretation become change? Frankly, D&D's rules can be obtuse enough to confuse anyone at some point. But why is it cannon to give control to a single player rather than call for a vote? Or some other resolution mechanic? It could be random for that matter, still arbitrary but not unilateral. Of course the best solution would be to clarify the rules as written...though that might cut out half the threads on these boards. :smallbiggrin:

If the second method is desired, why not make it the rule? Say Rule 0 becomes "The DM judges all rule issues unless overruled by a majority of the players."
*snip*


That game already exists. It's called "Nomic."

I'm curious, by the way, as to why you believe the DM shouldn't have the final say in everything. It is, after all, his game, and he controls everything except the players. The DM is installed because there is an implicit trust that he will create a fun and enjoyable game for everyone.

Jack Mann
2007-11-18, 01:10 AM
The dungeon master traditionally has control over the rules of the game because he typically does most of the work in the game; i.e. creating the adventure and perhaps even the campaign world, then running the adventures. They have to coordinate the effects the players have on the campaign world, as well as the encounters the party faces. Therefore, their playstyle is catered to more than any of the players.

This also gives them a somewhat more global view of how the players and game interact, which can (though it doesn't always) give them a better view of what works and what doesn't. Its their job to watch how all of the characters are doing, where a player might only see how their own character is performing. In theory, this means that the DM can redesign encounters and make rule changes to give everyone a chance to shine. It doesn't always work out this way, since not everyone is a great DM, but that's part of the theory.

Now, given all of this, the DM still has an obligation to make the game fun for the players, and any rule changes he makes should be with an eye toward that goal. If it isn't, players have every right to vote with their feet. A good DM will take player input, and enact changes that the players all want (within reason).

Raum
2007-11-18, 02:28 AM
I'm curious, by the way, as to why you believe the DM shouldn't have the final say in everything. It is, after all, his game, and he controls everything except the players. The DM is installed because there is an implicit trust that he will create a fun and enjoyable game for everyone.Why is it "his game"? Does he control everything except the players? And, if he does, why does that matter as long as the players are the protagonists?

I've been both a player and a GM at one point or another. Taking either role shouldn't make a difference as far as mechanics go...your focus changes, but not the game. You're all 'players', GMs just focus on the big picture rather than on an individual character. But the rules must apply equally to both. If they don't, you're not playing the same game.

@Desaril - It's arbitrary changes made by a single player (or GM if you prefer) that I'm calling detrimental. When the group agrees to the changes theres no problems, but when players have one expectation (based on the rules) and another player (the GM) makes changes without a consensus - well, they're playing different games at that point. Playing a game requires a unified set of rules. Without that it's either a story told by a single person or a chaotic mishmash of differing concepts. Neither is a game.

Lord Tataraus
2007-11-18, 03:14 AM
Why is it "his game"? Does he control everything except the players? And, if he does, why does that matter as long as the players are the protagonists?

I've been both a player and a GM at one point or another. Taking either role shouldn't make a difference as far as mechanics go...your focus changes, but not the game. You're all 'players', GMs just focus on the big picture rather than on an individual character. But the rules must apply equally to both. If they don't, you're not playing the same game.

I disagree. As DM, I "cheat" all the time and my players know it. If I just rolled three crits in a row, I'll make the last a miss if the players are suffering in a battle that was supposed to be easy. If the barbarian just one-shotted the villain with leap attack, I reset the villain's hp so the battle continues and its not a huge let down. I do tons of other things as well so we all have a more enjoyable game. That's what rule zero is for. The problem with everyone agreeing on a rule set and going with it what happens when you encounter something that you do not have a rule for? You have to implement rule 0 or you can't continue.

The Extinguisher
2007-11-18, 03:19 AM
I prefer the internet's. Rule #0: There is no Cabal. Which is much more fun to bring up in discussions.

But I do think the other rule 0 has merits on the board, especially when discussing things that are never the same thing.

Aquillion
2007-11-18, 03:44 AM
Why is it "his game"? Does he control everything except the players? And, if he does, why does that matter as long as the players are the protagonists?

I've been both a player and a GM at one point or another. Taking either role shouldn't make a difference as far as mechanics go...your focus changes, but not the game. You're all 'players', GMs just focus on the big picture rather than on an individual character. But the rules must apply equally to both. If they don't, you're not playing the same game.You see, this is where I disagree. I don't think the DM is playing the same game as the players; I don't think the DM is playing the game at all. The DM is running the game, not playing it; you can't do both.

The DM places every piece of treasure in the gameworld, sets every variable in its background, decides who will declare war on who if the players don't intervene, determines (by setting up the NPCs and political situations in question, and their goals and motivations) exactly how hard it will be for the players to intervene, and so on. Saying that the DM is playing a game doesn't make any sense. If the DM is playing a game, what are his goals? How does he win or lose?

No, it isn't 'to have fun' or 'to tell a story' or anything like that; that's not the same game the players are playing (except as far as the goal of all games is to have fun, I suppose). Players have straightforward goals: They collect treasure and XP, gain abilities, and resolve quests or other personal goals. DMs do none of these things, and (although they do control the monsters) they do not, in their primary role, oppose the players in doing any of these things. If they did, they could easily 'win' through the cunning expedient of putting no monsters, treasures, or challenges in the world at all.

leperkhaun
2007-11-18, 05:42 AM
Its already brought up all the time....... Another name for Rule 0 is...House Rule.

Khanderas
2007-11-18, 05:52 AM
So, uh.

What's Rule 0?
Player: I want to do X. The rules in this book says I can and combined with rule Y from THIS book... Im now a god with Ao as my personal manservant.
DM: There is a rule that comes before that, an older rule that superceeds yours.
Player: Oh yeah ? where is that ?
DM: It is Rule 0, that came into being because Rule 1 was sometimes a hassle. And rule 0 clearly states, you may not do X. Because I said so.

Leush
2007-11-18, 06:12 AM
That game already exists. It's called "Nomic."

I'm curious, by the way, as to why you believe the DM shouldn't have the final say in everything. It is, after all, his game, and he controls everything except the players. The DM is installed because there is an implicit trust that he will create a fun and enjoyable game for everyone.

Human beings have killed more people than any other beast (I think). Of course we then come to the point of whether the DM or the players are really people or human beings... Still... You get the point... Rule zero doesn't work unless everyone agrees.

Raum
2007-11-18, 09:43 AM
I disagree. As DM, I "cheat" all the time and my players know it.If the players expect it, you're not unilaterally changing the rules. Or at least you're doing so with a consensus.

If I just rolled three crits in a row, I'll make the last a miss if the players are suffering in a battle that was supposed to be easy. If the barbarian just one-shotted the villain with leap attack, I reset the villain's hp so the battle continues and its not a huge let down. So you're forcing the characters to be mediocre? They can neither go out in a blaze of glory to crits or spectacularly take out the BBEG in one shot. From your description (which hopefully isn't the whole story) the players aren't playing a game anymore. Their characters are merely along for the ride while you tell a story. At best, you're enforcing mediocrity by changing the rules as you see fit.


You see, this is where I disagree. I don't think the DM is playing the same game as the players; I don't think the DM is playing the game at all. The DM is running the game, not playing it; you can't do both.Whatever role I take, I play games to have fun. It can work with GM as 'referee' instead of GM as 'player with a different role' but that can be less fun for the GM. But, even with the GM as referee, the referee should simply apply and interpret rules. You can imagine what happens when a referee in a ball game starts changing the rules midstream...at that point it does become "the referee's game." Up till then it was the players' game.

The DM places every piece of treasure in the gameworld, sets every variable in its background, decides who will declare war on who if the players don't intervene, determines (by setting up the NPCs and political situations in question, and their goals and motivations) exactly how hard it will be for the players to intervene, and so on.Yep, it's a different role - but it is a role in the game.

Saying that the DM is playing a game doesn't make any sense. If the DM is playing a game, what are his goals? How does he win or lose?Why doesn't it make sense?

No, it isn't 'to have fun' or 'to tell a story' or anything like that; that's not the same game the players are playing (except as far as the goal of all games is to have fun, I suppose). Players have straightforward goals: They collect treasure and XP, gain abilities, and resolve quests or other personal goals. DMs do none of these things, and (although they do control the monsters) they do not, in their primary role, oppose the players in doing any of these things. If they did, they could easily 'win' through the cunning expedient of putting no monsters, treasures, or challenges in the world at all.Don't confuse role with game. Players can (and depending on the game, should) take different roles while playing the same game. Not everyone can be, or even wants to be, quarterback. But you need one if you're playing football.

It can still be a game with the players in different roles. It cannot be a game if the rules are inconsistent or applied unequally.

Riffington
2007-11-18, 09:52 AM
D&D is (at least for me) a roleplaying game that I play for fun. To do that, you need rule 0.

However, some people here enjoy a house rule called "RAW" which means "we don't use rule 0". That changes D&D from a roleplaying game to a number-crunching exercise game.

A few people play with a modified rule 0 that is "DMing is a shared responsibility, and every player has a right to help shape the world and its rules". With the right group, this is awesome.

Riffington
2007-11-18, 09:56 AM
It can still be a game with the players in different roles. It cannot be a game if the rules are inconsistent or applied unequally.


Surely you mean, it cannot be a wargame.
Roleplaying Games, Drinking Games, and Calvinball are some fun games that can have inconsistent rules.

Jayabalard
2007-11-18, 10:11 AM
But why is it cannon to give control to a single player rather than call for a vote? It's not canon to give control to a player; you give that control to the referee, who's job it is to adjudicate these sort of things.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-18, 10:45 AM
If the players expect it, you're not unilaterally changing the rules. Or at least you're doing so with a consensus.

Well, he seems to be doing so with the consensus in his group that Rule 0 applies. I'm not sure what the other consensus you are talking about it. I'm sure he's not stopping and saying "hey guys, I'm going to turn this deadly crit into a miss ok?"



So you're forcing the characters to be mediocre? They can neither go out in a blaze of glory to crits or spectacularly take out the BBEG in one shot. From your description (which hopefully isn't the whole story) the players aren't playing a game anymore. Their characters are merely along for the ride while you tell a story. At best, you're enforcing mediocrity by changing the rules as you see fit.


Oh please. The dm fudging things occasionally is not the same as making everyone just along for the ride. There are levels of DM interference and levels of freedom for the players that vary from DM to DM and group to group. Breaking the rules to make a situation more fun for the group is one of the only two real reasons for Rule 0 and that sounds to be what he is doing. I mean really, is getting killed by a lucky goblin who rolled three crits a 'blaze of glory?' and how much fun is it for the rest of the party when the climactic encounter is basically just the Barbarian raising and lowering his axe?



But, even with the GM as referee, the referee should simply apply and interpret rules. You can imagine what happens when a referee in a ball game starts changing the rules midstream...at that point it does become "the referee's game." Up till then it was the players' game.

This is a faulty analogy. The rules of basketball or football are pretty clear and referees pretty much never need to interpret them or make up new ones on the spot to cover parts of the game for which there are no established rules. That's not the case in D&D where not only are many of the rules vague, they apply to every aspect of the game, which they don't in a real sport (the laws of physics are not determined by the referee, they are by a GM).




It can still be a game with the players in different roles. It cannot be a game if the rules are inconsistent or applied unequally.

Well sure, a bad GM uses rule 0 to railroad the heck out of his players, changing the rules whenever they need inorder to keep their players on the rails. A good GM uses rule 0 to make the game more interesting (creating a houserule that allows for a neat villian which would otherwise be prohibited by RAW), to keep the game moving ("Ok, everyone shut up! For the rest of this session X does Y. We can take it up later."), and to make sure there is at least some drama in the game (where's the dramatic tension in one shotting the BBEG?).

Raum
2007-11-18, 10:56 AM
Surely you mean, it cannot be a wargame.
Roleplaying Games, Drinking Games, and Calvinball are some fun games that can have inconsistent rules.Nope, said what I meant. :) I'm not sure Calvinball is a game - it's entertainment in comic form, but a game? As for drinking games, skim through a couple [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_game]they do have consistent rules.[/quote] Same with RPGs...consistent rules are what the publishers rely on to make a living. But even heavily house ruled games can be consistent.

-----
Take an objective look at what a game is...at the elements required for something to be a game instead of a story or a puzzle. Is Sim City a game or a toy? It's designer calls it a toy. What about Solitaire? Is it a game or a puzzle?

What elements must a role playing activity have to be a game?

AKA_Bait
2007-11-18, 11:04 AM
What elements must a role playing activity have to be a game?

You should read Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations. I think you might find his analisys of the word 'game' useful.

Raum
2007-11-18, 11:16 AM
Oh please. The dm fudging things occasionally is not the same as making everyone just along for the ride. There are levels of DM interference and levels of freedom for the players that vary from DM to DM and group to group. I agree, hence my caveat hoping there was more to the story than in print. There usually is. But, based purely off the information given, mediocrity was being enforced. Neither the GM's NPCs or the players' characters were allowed to succeed in a spectacularly unexpected fashion.

Breaking the rules to make a situation more fun for the group is one of the only two real reasons for Rule 0 and that sounds to be what he is doing. I mean really, is getting killed by a lucky goblin who rolled three crits a 'blaze of glory?' and how much fun is it for the rest of the party when the climactic encounter is basically just the Barbarian raising and lowering his axe?First, I'm not pointing fingers and saying "person X railroads!" I'm simply responding to the examples given. As for being killed by a lucky goblin, that may well be fun. If I'm playing a game where combat is supposed to be dangerous and risky, then yes, getting killed by the goblin is part of the fun. Of course the flip side is, if I'm playing an over the top game of legendary superheroics - then the rules should never have allowed the goblin to have a chance of hurting my character. Neither is wrong. Know what game you're playing.

This is a faulty analogy. The rules of basketball or football are pretty clear and referees pretty much never need to interpret them or make up new ones on the spot to cover parts of the game for which there are no established rules. That's not the case in D&D where not only are many of the rules vague, they apply to every aspect of the game, which they don't in a real sport (the laws of physics are not determined by the referee, they are by a GM). Is it a bad analogy? There seems to be controversy in sports every year. Are both sports and RPGs "games"? If so, what similarities are required to meet the definition of "game"?

<snip, bad GMs are a different issue>
A good GM uses rule 0 to make the game more interesting (creating a houserule that allows for a neat villian which would otherwise be prohibited by RAW), to keep the game moving ("Ok, everyone shut up! For the rest of this session X does Y. We can take it up later."), and to make sure there is at least some drama in the game (where's the dramatic tension in one shotting the BBEG?).Two out of three of your examples seem to be oriented towards making your activity a better story. Was that your intent? If so, does it truly have a place in a game?

Raum
2007-11-18, 11:23 AM
You should read Wittgenstein's philosophical investigations. I think you might find his analisys of the word 'game' useful.The Wikipedia article looks interesting, I may check it out. Probably not till after the holidays though...

Sstoopidtallkid
2007-11-18, 11:27 AM
I always saw the GM as an author, while the players are a combination of protagonists and readers. If the players want to change the story, that's fine. If the GM wants to change the story, that's fine. It is only when the dice start changing the story that there is a problem.

AKA_Bait
2007-11-18, 11:50 AM
Neither the GM's NPCs or the players' characters were allowed to succeed in a spectacularly unexpected fashion.

Why on earth should the GM's NPC's succeed in spectacularly unexpected fashion unless it serves some purpose in making it more fun for the group?


As for being killed by a lucky goblin, that may well be fun. If I'm playing a game where combat is supposed to be dangerous and risky, then yes, getting killed by the goblin is part of the fun. Of course the flip side is, if I'm playing an over the top game of legendary superheroics - then the rules should never have allowed the goblin to have a chance of hurting my character. Neither is wrong. Know what game you're playing.

The game is Dungeons and Dragon and both of those styles of play are totally acceptable ways to play the same game. In fact, a good GM can have both be true in the same game if he has some players who like one style and some players who like the other.


If so, what similarities are required to meet the definition of "game"?

Sigh. My reference to Wittgenstein above was a way of saying that there aren't specific neccesary and sufficent conditions for 'gameness' and that it's silly to get into a semantic argument about what qualifies as a game and what doesn't. However, since this seems really important to you check out the primary definition of the term game here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game).



1. an amusement or pastime




Two out of three of your examples seem to be oriented towards making your activity a better story. Was that your intent? If so, does it truly have a place in a game?

Sure it has a place in a game, particularly D&D or any other story telling game. The intricacy of the story going on depends upon the style of play your group prefers but there is always a story which the PC's are a part of. That's usually called an adventure or a campaign. Otherwise everyone might as well just be playing D&D Mini's.

Also, just as a general point, rule 0 is explicitly an option for how to run the game.



You are the arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period.
(text omitted for shortness of post)
The answer: the DM really can't cheat.You're the umpire and what you say goes. As such, it's certianly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things moving. (emphasis theirs)

shadow_archmagi
2007-11-18, 12:01 PM
I shall put my own opinion forth here.


The DM is the supreme judge of rules because his only goal here is to amuse the players. If the DM is having fun, thats good, thats a fringe benefit, but the player's fun is far more important.

Snadgeros
2007-11-18, 12:10 PM
The only time Rule 0 should ever really be brought up in a thread is if someone is talking non-hypothetically, as in, they want to actually use this in a campaign. At that point it's prudent to point out the flaws in their idea that would never be allowed by any sane DM.

Raum
2007-11-18, 12:16 PM
Why on earth should the GM's NPC's succeed in spectacularly unexpected fashion unless it serves some purpose in making it more fun for the group? Why do games have resources to manage? Why do games risk loss of resources? Yes, because risk is fun. If you take the risk out of the game, you've also taken some of the fun away.

The game is Dungeons and Dragon and both of those styles of play are totally acceptable ways to play the same game. Yep, that's what I said.

In fact, a good GM can have both be true in the same game if he has some players who like one style and some players who like the other.This is more problematical. At some point I start to wonder if everyone is playing the same game.

Sigh. My reference to Wittgenstein above was a way of saying that there aren't specific neccesary and sufficent conditions for 'gameness' and that it's silly to get into a semantic argument about what qualifies as a game and what doesn't. Aren't there? I haven't read it yet so can't comment on his writings. But, I suspect each of us will have certain perceived conditions for 'gameness' some of our perceptions may even overlap.

However, since this seems really important to you check out the primary definition of the term game here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game).
1. an amusement or pastimeThen again, our perceptions may well differ. A crossword puzzle is 'an amusement or pastime' so is a book or movie. None of the three meet my perceptions of what a game is though.

Sure it has a place in a game, particularly D&D or any other story telling game. The intricacy of the story going on depends upon the style of play your group prefers but there is always a story which the PC's are a part of. That's usually called an adventure or a campaign. Otherwise everyone might as well just be playing D&D Mini's.Don't go overboard. It doesn't become a miniature wargame simply because your story is unscripted or the players are capable of changing the story.

Also, just as a general point, rule 0 is explicitly an option for how to run the game.Eh? Don't think anyone thought otherwise. At least not as it relates to D&D.

Ralfarius
2007-11-18, 12:28 PM
I'm going with Raum on this one. A DM should only invoke Rule 0 insofar as to settle an argument in a manner that everyone can find at least compromisingly agreeable, for the sake of moving things along. Also, any such ruling should remain consistent, at least within the context of one campaign.

The DM may be handling the bigger share of the workload, but everyone is in it for fun. If Rule 0 is just used as the DM's "I win" button for any sort of rules discussion, even if there shouldn't be a discrepancy in the rule interpretation... Well, then the DM is treating the game too much like his/hers. The game doesn't belong to the GM, and the players are not simply favoured to be allowed to join. D&D is supposed to be a collaborative, enjoyable experience. The DM works with the players to create a fun and memorable story/campaign/what have you.

As a person who has been a DM slightly more often than a player, I do not believe that the GM is any more important. It is their responsibility to create a compelling world and storylines for players to interact with, but without compelling and interesting characters, there's simply no game.

In short, Rule 0 should not be "I, the, DM am always right," but rather "Well, let's play it this way instead of arguing back and forth all night, and decide when we're not in the middle of combat whether or not we like it this way."

Also, concerning people dying unluckily: such an event certainly can be fun, if players are able to deal with the fact that sometimes characters... Well, they die. Adventuring is dangerous, after all.

It can also make for some good stories.
"Remember the time that Young Adult Red Dragon tail-slapped your character, and it instant killed him?"
"Oh yeah, that was classic. I can't believe you all managed to kill it and scrape enough of him off the wall for a resurrection."

Basically, sometimes unexpected death can contribute to a game. I mean, what if the characters are under a serious time-crunch, and one of them accidentally bites it to some random encounter? The party decides that they can't afford to go forth minus one, so they double back to the nearest temple and resurrect the unfortunate comrade. The BBEG could be doing all sorts of nasty things in the meantime, and the story can evolve even more from such a setback.

Vva70
2007-11-18, 01:06 PM
I think one of the reasons rule 0 places control strictly in the hands of the DM is the assumption that the DM has the best interests of the group in mind. Now, for some groups, this assumption fails. But in most cases, if the DM has an adversarial attitude towards the players, then the game is a lost hope even without rule 0 adding to the mix.

D&D is not a wargame, and the DM does not have arbitrary limits on his (or her) options. Even without rule 0, he could push the players around with high-level NPCs, governments, plot points, etc. Unless the DM runs nothing but by-the-book prepackaged adventures, he needs to have an attitude that does not entail him abusing his position.

Also, while I stand by my statement that the main purpose of rule 0 is swift dispute adjudication, there is a second purpose that is moderately significant. Consider the ancient ritual to summon a powerful outsider. Or the powerful artifact that wars are fought for control over. Or the crazed wizard performing magical breeding experiments. Or any event where no rule is in place to allow for the creation of a major plot point. The DM must be able to make the world work, and he can't always check every change with his players without spoiling the adventure plot.

Riffington
2007-11-18, 05:26 PM
Nope, said what I meant. :) I'm not sure Calvinball is a game - it's entertainment in comic form, but a game? As for drinking games, skim through a couple [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_game]they do have consistent rules. Same with RPGs...consistent rules are what the publishers rely on to make a living. But even heavily house ruled games can be consistent.
Calvinball is a game. It's a great game, with the right people.
I don't need to use wikipedia to describe drinking games, I've played them. People don't always use consistent rules. When one person needs to drink more, we make him drink more. When one person needs to drink less, we bend the rules to avoid getting him too wasted. When alcohol is involved, this kind of rulebending is needed to make sure everyone has fun.
RPGs are often (if not usually) played with inconsistent rules. When a minor random encounter rolls a ridiculous crit, most DMs will consider fudging to avoid killing a player. It's still an RPG.
I'm a little confused about this "consistent rules are what the publishers rely on to make a living" bit. I mean, I buy RPGs because they are fun, have good artwork, have a cool setting, have an attractive playerbase, etc. Rifts and White Wolf Games would not be quite so popular if a consistent rules set were so important.