Concerning Rule 0

[Goober4473]

So I wrote this just now, and thought I'd share. Enjoy.

Rule 0 states that the Dungeon Master is allowed to break any rule at any time in order to make the game better. This is fairly intuitive, as the DM controls the game, but this is also a large responsibility, and some DMs don’t know how to handle it properly. If you can change anything, how do you know what you should change, or even what’s available to be changed? What’s a good change to make? When should you use rule 0, and when shouldn’t you? Here I will try to answer these sorts of questions.

First, what rule 0 should not be used for. The most important of these is winning. Rule 0 is not a way to win, or beat the players, or show how awesome you are. If rule 0 isn’t making the game more fun for everyone, it’s not being used properly. Likewise, rule 0 is not for punishing players. If you’ve heard of “DM’s lightning” or “rocks fall and everyone dies,” then you’ve heard examples of bad use or rule 0. Killing PCs for being annoying or stupid using rule 0 is bad. If a player has to be punished for stupidity, let nature take its course. Bad decisions should lead to bad consequences in most cases. Running into a room of enemies and trying to hug them all will get you killed by the enemies, not struck by lightning for no reason.

Rule 0 is not for changing rules for no reason, ignoring all rules, or changing rules without knowing the consequences. If a rule doesn’t need changing, leave it alone. Changing it will only cause confusion. Make sure you understand what you’re doing, and you understand why a rule exists before you change it. A temporary ruling may be necessary if no one knows a rule in order to speed up play, but permanent changes should be considered carefully. Making a new class may seem like a good idea, but most of the time, a class already exists that can do what you want. Even though there’s a lot of new stuff to make, you have to make sure it’s really something new.

Now then, what rule 0 is for. Rule 0 is to make the game more fun. If the game is fun, you’re doing it right, but here are some ways to use it effectively. The first is to make improvising easier by estimating. You don’t have to make up all the stats of an NPC if you just decide on the basics on the fly. Estimate the attack bonuses, saves, AC, hit point, etc. and assume it has some feats when they come up. Class abilities are pretty easy to estimate by checking the level progression, and looking at the spell list and deciding weather they had something prepared or known when it comes time to cast it, instead of picking before hand, can speed things up immensely. If you’re new to the system, this can be hard, and you may want to stick to sample NPCs, and preplanned ones, but once you start to get a feel for numbers, it speeds up planning quite a bit. The players wont know the difference unless you tell them.

In addition, using rule 0 to make impossible characters is okay (and I encourage it), if it makes an encounter better. Give an NPC an extra feat or two if it will make it more interesting, or give them all the class abilities of two or more classes (gestalt levels). Give a monster class abilities it couldn’t have. Give a boss monster more hit points and less damage. Boss fights are more fun if they last a while. You don’t want the boss dying too fast or killing the PCs in just a few rounds. Maybe give that dragon max hit points, displacement, and some better damage reduction, but cut it’s damage down a little, and lower the save on its breath weapon.

Rule 0 can be used to alter challenges, even mid-fight. If that troll that was supposed to be a boss fight is dying too fast, boost its hit points. If the drow sorcerer is dealing too much damage, even though it’s an unimportant encounter, tone down the damage dice on its spells.

Finally, rule 0 can be used to preserve balance. Even though a combination of classes, feats, etc. is perfectly legal, that doesn’t mean it’s balanced or fair. Feel free to tell that level 3 character that deals 60 damage a round to change his or her character if it will unbalance the game, or change the way an ability works, or how it works with another ability, or order to make it fair.

Hopefully this has been useful to those reading it. Enjoy your infinite power, and remember that with great power comes great potential to abuse that power.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I thought Rule 0 concerned homebrew material?

:smallconfused:

Then again, I've only read it once, so I don't know.

EDIT: Ah. DM fiat. That makes sense.

Nevermind, then.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Rule 0 = DM's Fiat

[KillianHawkeye]

I agree that you shouldn't change a rule without understanding why that rule exists. A lot of the guys I play with complain about rules not making sense because they are not realistic, but often times these rules were made to sacrifice realism in the name of playability or game balance.

[Abjurer]

I don't think a DM should ever change or cut rules without the concent of the PCs. Houserules should make the game fun for the whole group, not just the DM. That's what they're for.

[AKA_Bait]

I don't think a DM should ever change or cut rules without the concent of the PCs. Houserules should make the game fun for the whole group, not just the DM. That's what they're for.

I think for most groups this consent is assumed to be subsumed into the appointmet of the DM in the first place. Expecting, as a game progresses, the DM to run any change from or bending of the core rules would kill much of the fun. A homebrewed class, ability or monster that makes the players go 'WTF was that thing?' would be totally spoiled by seeking the players consent ahead of time as you would then have to reveal what the thing is before you spring it upon them.

By and large, you have a point. The DM shouldn't just change the rules whenever they feel like to mess with the other players in the group for their own malicuous enjoyment. I think that's pretty well understood by everyone though.

[....]

I change rules to make things go by quicker and make games more cinematic and exciting. Usually I don't look up the HP or AC of a mook unless its something really strange, I just write down two numbers and let it go.

When you try to do everything by the rules, it always seems to bog down the game with lots of dice-rolling and book consulting, so I usually just let things go with the flow.

[Zincorium]

I don't think a DM should ever change or cut rules without the concent of the PCs. Houserules should make the game fun for the whole group, not just the DM. That's what they're for.

I slightly disagree. The DM should find out well beforehand how comfortable the PCs are with rules changes, and then try and stay on the safe side of that line. Anything which does not require the players to know the rules changed can be kept secret until sprung, but be honest about it if they ask.

Rules that the players have to deal with directly, like changing class features, should bring them into the creation of it. For example, if your players don't even realize that wizards can do something other than fireball critters, then nerfing wizards is pointless in your particular game.

[BRC]

"Remember, the players are not your enemies...
They are your entertainment."
-Paranoia Sourcebook.

[Aquaseafoam]

I don't think a DM should ever change or cut rules without the concent of the PCs. Houserules should make the game fun for the whole group, not just the DM. That's what they're for.

The players have the very powerful option of playing another game. I'm 100% certain that they wouldn't consent to my changes to diplomacy, even if everyone understands it's broken. A child might not consent to getting less ice cream, even if it's good for him.

[TheElfLord]

The players have the very powerful option of playing another game. I'm 100% certain that they wouldn't consent to my changes to diplomacy, even if everyone understands it's broken. A child might not consent to getting less ice cream, even if it's good for him.

Yeah, I try to get player concent before resorting to DM fiat. For example, I switched to the Giant's Diplomacy variation. I applealed to their maturity as roleplayers and decent human beings (They have a lot of both qualities). However there was the quietly spoken implecation that the change was happening anyway because it was better for the game. The players had the chance to recognize it and work with it, instead of having it forced on them.

[Roog]

The players have the very powerful option of playing another game. I'm 100% certain that they wouldn't consent to my changes to diplomacy, even if everyone understands it's broken. A child might not consent to getting less ice cream, even if it's good for him.

Maybe, but an adult's choice not to have less ice cream, is one that you should respect.

If you treat your players like adults you will quite often find that they will make good quality decisions for themselves, and then there is no need for you to treat them like children and make decisions for them "for their own good".

[Kaelik]

The players have the very powerful option of playing another game. I'm 100% certain that they wouldn't consent to my changes to diplomacy, even if everyone understands it's broken. A child might not consent to getting less ice cream, even if it's good for him.

Except that most players have an incentive to agree to change diplomacy. More then one Diplomancer build is redundant. Therefore any party will usually have only one. He makes everyone useless, and takes away all their fun. Therefore, nobody wants him to be able to do that.

What you said is like saying that players would not consent to disallowing Pun-Pun. Of course they would, because less Pun means more Fun.

[AstralFire]

The players have the very powerful option of playing another game. I'm 100% certain that they wouldn't consent to my changes to diplomacy, even if everyone understands it's broken. A child might not consent to getting less ice cream, even if it's good for him.

Good thing I play with friends and not children.

I love to DM, but I take extreme objection to the "I AM THE MASTER AND AUTHORITY" mentality of DMing.

[Swordguy]

Good thing I play with friends and not children.

I love to DM, but I take extreme objection to the "I AM THE MASTER AND AUTHORITY" mentality of DMing.

Okay, where does this fall into your point of view?

"All right guys, I'm running X style of D&D. To promote a better feeling of X style, the following house rules will be in effect..."

Where X style is something like "low magic" that basically requires a modification of D&D.

I'm not giving them a choice in the house rules; they're welcome to play or not, but make no mistake, these house rules ARE going to be used. In my neck of the woods, nobody else is willing to do the work to actually run a game (they talk a mean game of DM-ing, though), so if they want a game, they're going to be playing whatever it is I'm offering.

[AstralFire]

Okay, where does this fall into your point of view?

"All right guys, I'm running X style of D&D. To promote a better feeling of X style, the following house rules will be in effect..."

Where X style is something like "low magic" that basically requires a modification of D&D.

I'm not giving them a choice in the house rules; they're welcome to play or not, but make no mistake, these house rules ARE going to be used. In my neck of the woods, nobody else is willing to do the work to actually run a game (they talk a mean game of DM-ing, though), so if they want a game, they're going to be playing whatever it is I'm offering.

To be perfectly honest, I understand that.

Something in me gets set afire whenever I hear disparaging remarks about the PCs being children or something similar. Some of the other boards I visit have that as the prevailing attitude and it drives me nuts.

It's one thing to say "if I'm going to DM, it'll be this way because I enjoy this rule" and another to say "Now that I am DMing, I've decided it'll be this way because you're all immature children and I'm in charge!"

[Swordguy]

It's one thing to say "if I'm going to DM, it'll be this way because I enjoy this rule" and another to say "Now that I am DMing, I've decided it'll be this way because you're all immature children and I'm in charge!"

Ah, yes. That I can completely understand. Thank you for the clarification.

Of course, occasionally I have had to DM for (literal) immature children. In that case I feel justified in pulling that line. :smallbiggrin:

[Zincorium]

Okay, where does this fall into your point of view?

"All right guys, I'm running X style of D&D. To promote a better feeling of X style, the following house rules will be in effect..."

Where X style is something like "low magic" that basically requires a modification of D&D.

I'm not giving them a choice in the house rules; they're welcome to play or not, but make no mistake, these house rules ARE going to be used. In my neck of the woods, nobody else is willing to do the work to actually run a game (they talk a mean game of DM-ing, though), so if they want a game, they're going to be playing whatever it is I'm offering.

In a sense, you are holding their ability to play hostage to your personal tastes (although I feel no sympathy for people who aren't willing to try DMing).

Normally people do have a choice of at least two groups, I'm from a town of under a thousand people and I could still choose between three different games on a weekend back when I was in high school. That could just be Oregon, though. In any case, when there's free choice as to whether or not to play your game, you aren't under any obligation to 'go with the flow'.


However, if you aren't running the game your players would like to play (say everyone else hated low magic games) then you're kind of missing the point of being a DM as opposed to an author.

[Swordguy]

In a sense, you are holding their ability to play hostage to your personal tastes (although I feel no sympathy for people who aren't willing to try DMing).

Normally people do have a choice of at least two groups, I'm from a town of under a thousand people and I could still choose between three different games on a weekend back when I was in high school. That could just be Oregon, though. In any case, when there's free choice as to whether or not to play your game, you aren't under any obligation to 'go with the flow'.

However, if you aren't running the game your players would like to play (say everyone else hated low magic games) then you're kind of missing the point of being a DM as opposed to an author.

What're we to do, then, if I don't like D&D that isn't low magic? Should I suborn what I want to play completely? Then I don't get to have any fun - and I'm doing a hell of a lot more work to make the game happen than my players. If you get out of the game what you put into it, and I'm putting more into it than 4 other people combined, shouldn't I generally be guaranteed to get something out of it?

As it happen, by the way, my game is pretty much the only game in town that any of us know of with players in our age group (late 20s-early 30s) - all the rest of the game we know about are high school students, and we don't want to get into that. And I'm in decent sized city too.

[Nattypat]

If I make a mechanical house-rule, I keep it written down and available to players in a document, so that players can understand and consult it. It also contains information on what is restricted for balance, (though not much is restricted). When it comes to in-game I usually fudge to make things more of a challenge, or to keep monsters from critting and killing players in one shot.

[deadseashoals]

What're we to do, then, if I don't like D&D that isn't low magic? Should I suborn what I want to play completely? Then I don't get to have any fun - and I'm doing a hell of a lot more work to make the game happen than my players. If you get out of the game what you put into it, and I'm putting more into it than 4 other people combined, shouldn't I generally be guaranteed to get something out of it?

I don't think this is a very likely circumstance. Clearly, your players draw some kind of entertainment from your game - if they didn't, they'd choose not to play your game, even if your game is the only game in town. If the players and the DM were at such odds, I don't think it would even be possible to play a serious game.

[Swordguy]

I don't think this is a very likely circumstance. Clearly, your players draw some kind of entertainment from your game - if they didn't, they'd choose not to play your game, even if your game is the only game in town. If the players and the DM were at such odds, I don't think it would even be possible to play a serious game.

To be fair, it's a response to Zincorium's question about:

"In a sense, you are holding their ability to play hostage to your personal tastes (although I feel no sympathy for people who aren't willing to try DMing).
...
However, if you aren't running the game your players would like to play (say everyone else hated low magic games) then you're kind of missing the point of being a DM as opposed to an author."


I'm absolutely holding them hostage. The question is whether I have the right to do so when their options are to go play another game when there isn't one readily available, or go start one of their own (which they've proven absolutely unable to do).

Should I, as a DM, have to suborn my own entertainment to the whims of the players?

That's the crux of the matter. If my house rules are what enables me to have fun, and the players don't have another option for a game, why shouldn't I impose my house rules upon them?

[AstralFire]

It's really a matter of attitude more than anything. I distrust DMs who kickaround power and authority for the hell of it, or disdain their PCs, but the DM has to have fun too - often a very stiff order given all of his responsibilities.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Should I, as a DM, have to suborn my own entertainment to the whims of the players?

That's the crux of the matter. If my house rules are what enables me to have fun, and the players don't have another option for a game, why shouldn't I impose my house rules upon them?

Should you have to? No, I don't think there should be a law or anything.

But are you being kind of a selfish jerk if you entirely dismiss the preferences of a whole group of people in favor of your own? Yeah, I think you are. That's pretty much iconic Selfish-Jerkhood right there.

What non-selfish-jerk people do in that sort of situation is compromise. Run a slightly less low-magic game. Have the next game cater more to your players' tastes. Maybe the time after that someone else can try DMing. And so on.

[Lady Tialait]

I love that rule..as a DM...mostly I use it in situations I KNOW our group will take 30 minets to look up the rules debate them and then we need to stop playing for the day...see ya next week...

Example:
Big Dumb Fighter: I grab em'
Me: Alright..roll a touch attack..
BDF: alright...does a 15 hit?
Me: yeah..he's grabbed
BDF: um..arn't their Grappleing rules?
Me: Um...GR...

yes..we call it the GR...The Golden Rule..

[AstralFire]

I love that rule..as a DM...mostly I use it in situations I KNOW our group will take 30 minets to look up the rules debate them and then we need to stop playing for the day...see ya next week...

Example:
Big Dumb Fighter: I grab em'
Me: Alright..roll a touch attack..
BDF: alright...does a 15 hit?
Me: yeah..he's grabbed
BDF: um..arn't their Grappleing rules?
Me: Um...GR...

yes..we call it the GR...The Golden Rule..

Er, maybe that was just a bad example... because if you have a PHB or the internet lying around, that one's pretty simple and quick.

[deadseashoals]

To be fair, it's a response to Zincorium's question about:

"In a sense, you are holding their ability to play hostage to your personal tastes (although I feel no sympathy for people who aren't willing to try DMing).
...
However, if you aren't running the game your players would like to play (say everyone else hated low magic games) then you're kind of missing the point of being a DM as opposed to an author."


I'm absolutely holding them hostage. The question is whether I have the right to do so when their options are to go play another game when there isn't one readily available, or go start one of their own (which they've proven absolutely unable to do).

Should I, as a DM, have to suborn my own entertainment to the whims of the players?

That's the crux of the matter. If my house rules are what enables me to have fun, and the players don't have another option for a game, why shouldn't I impose my house rules upon them?

Do your players not want to play in a low-magic game? Why do they show up if they're not having fun? I like gaming and all, but I know if the only game around were not suited to my tastes, I would just opt out.

[Lady Tialait]

Er, maybe that was just a bad example... because if you have a PHB or the internet lying around, that one's pretty simple and quick.

Do you realize...that half of the time the grapple rules create a debate..plus add what? four rolls to each round...I will abuse my power as a DM if we can finish up a combat faster...Sorry..I don't want to use our once a week session debating the rules So if i KNOW the players will argue with what is in the book. say it's dumb or somesuch...I just growl at them.

[AstralFire]

Do you realize...that half of the time the grapple rules create a debate..plus add what? four rolls to each round...I will abuse my power as a DM if we can finish up a combat faster...Sorry..I don't want to use our once a week session debating the rules So if i KNOW the players will argue with what is in the book. say it's dumb or somesuch...I just growl at them.

I haven't had a grapple rule debate in *months*. One time clearing it up is better than 50 times of saying "it works, damn you."

[Lady Tialait]

that worked for you...good for you. My players are stubborn..trust me We've had lots of clearing up of the rules the same snags hit. I just gloss over them for the sake of the game. I mean..if you don't think they are Stubborn they were told in game that they couldn't kill Vecna because they where too weak (they were level 2 and just killed a level 3 cleric of Vecna) sooo they set out on a Epic quest to kill him...they are now level 34 and still havn't killed him...

[Kaelik]

Do you realize...that half of the time the grapple rules create a debate..plus add what? four rolls to each round...I will abuse my power as a DM if we can finish up a combat faster...Sorry..I don't want to use our once a week session debating the rules So if i KNOW the players will argue with what is in the book. say it's dumb or somesuch...I just growl at them.

Seriously, the Grapple rules aren't very hard to understand, assuming you ever have thirty minutes with your players outside of your normal game time just go over them and explain them.

As for rolls, if you actually look it over, and compare to say, attacking, grappling doesn't increase the number of rolls made in a round.

The only reason it is "confusing" is because grapple options are different from normal options. But options on a ship are different from normal options too, the difference is that everyone understands the ship options. Go over the grapple rules and then you'll never have a problem again.

[Lady Tialait]

as I tried to say, I have been over them. Just started another debate. looseing us another session..So..Rule 0..or GR works..maybe not everyone..but for my game

[Renx]

http://www.reallifecomics.com/comics/2000/20000731_237.png

'nuff said

[senrath]

When I've DMed, I've only ever rule 0'ed in order to either keep really moronic players in line, prevent something incredibly stupid that works per RAW from working, or allowing something that doesn't work per RAW to work. And before people ask, me and my friends kill hundreds of catgirls per session.

[Tormsskull]

When I DM, there is no such thing as rule 0, as everything is up to the DM. I've never had to justify a decision I've made by pointing to a book and saying "See, this rule allows me to do what I just did."

When players accept an invitation to game with the campaign/setting I'm using, they enter a contract to accept all of my decisions. If they disagree with a decision, they are more than welcome to discuss it with me at anytime (but preferably not in the middle of a game if it is going to take up a significant amount of time). But in the end, I make the final decision since I'm the one that is DMing.

Also, to the OP, your write-up seems written with a very negative approach. Generally speaking, you should list the positive uses of a rule first, and then comment briefly on the negative sides. Your write-up comes off as a bit patronizing to DMs as it is now.

[Duke of URL]

Do you realize...that half of the time the grapple rules create a debate..

And this is where "Rule 0" is supposed to come in. If there's a debate over a rules interpretation, guess who wins the debate?

Experience in things other than gaming tells me that if you're going to be the arbiter of the rules, you let everyone make their case (briefly), consider their points, factor in what the effects would be in your view, make a decision, and briefly explain it to everyone else.

If you let everyone be part of the decision (even if it is only a token participation) then it comes across as less of a "fiat" situation.

[Khanderas]

When I DM, there is no such thing as rule 0, as everything is up to the DM. I've never had to justify a decision I've made by pointing to a book and saying "See, this rule allows me to do what I just did."
Isn't that the point of rule 0 ?
Maybe there is a rule to handle X, maybe not, but in either case what the DM says, goes.

Rules say X and Y and Z stack, DM says: no it doesn't. Guess what... It doesn't.

I agree with you, a DM should not have to prove what he rules. Sometimes an explanation is nice though, like "that would be heavily unbalanced" (crunch) or "a married dutchess is not going to elope with your Bard after 10 minutes of conversation, I don't care what your Diplomacy is at" ((Especially when he has a reputation of lovin' and leavin')) (fluff).

[Kaelik]

as I tried to say, I have been over them. Just started another debate. looseing us another session..So..Rule 0..or GR works..maybe not everyone..but for my game

Right. And I told you in my post how to fix that. Go over the rules outside of a session. It only takes once, then they know the rules forever.

Maybe if your players are idiots who can't understand the rules you'd have a point, but unlike most DMs I give players more credit. If they can handle every other rule, they can handle grappling, you just have to actually go over the rules, do it outside of a session so that you don't lose one.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Isn't that the point of rule 0 ?
Maybe there is a rule to handle X, maybe not, but in either case what the DM says, goes.

Rules say X and Y and Z stack, DM says: no it doesn't. Guess what... It doesn't.

I agree with you, a DM should not have to prove what he rules. Sometimes an explanation is nice though, like "that would be heavily unbalanced" (crunch) or "a married dutchess is not going to elope with your Bard after 10 minutes of conversation, I don't care what your Diplomacy is at" ((Especially when he has a reputation of lovin' and leavin')) (fluff).The problem with diplomacy is that, RAW, a roll of 20 with a +10 mod and a guy who started out friendly can mean anything from "the shopkeeper, after much consideration, gives you a 10% discount" to "you have managed to convince the king he is a piece of toast, I hate you so much". Diplomacy isn't broken so much as it is vague. There are literally no limits on it besides what the DM houserules in. I wouldn't even call that rule 0, I'd call it setting, like deciding whether to run high or low magic.

[its_all_ogre]

i like changes if they are declared beforehand if they are going to change your characters usefulness. warning the beguiler or rogue that the campaign is going to feature lots of undead and constructs for example.
this is not changing the rules though.
but if you decide to ignore attacks of opportunity rules and one player has decided to build a AoO character then you have totally wasted their input. a dm of mine in the past gave attacks of opportunity to a greatsword weilding fighter (npc)when confronted with a dagger wielding rogue(pc) to the extent that it totally changed the fights outcome.
rules like this should be informed first, as they change the way your character actually works mechanically.

[valadil]

I've always felt that the publishing of rule 0 was indicative that the GM should play against the players. Maybe that needs to be more explicit. My interpretation as GM has always been that due to rule 0 if the game comes down to GM versus players, GM wins. Thus there is no point in playing the antigonizing GM.

Some of you have mentioned low magic games. The GM is more than welcome to offer a game setting with reduced magic. Removing magic after players have joined and committed to their characters is bad form. You don't want to bait and switch anyone.

I can't recall having to invoke rule 0 very often, nor can I recall players having any problems with my rules decisions. As long as you're up front with your players things should be okay. I tell mine what the game is like before extending an invitation and I make sure to publish and distribute any house rules. The only time I have trouble with this is once the game has already started. Some mechanics just don't work as intended and I don't like fiddling with them once the game is in progress, especially if it hurts a player.

[Duke of URL]

I've always felt that the publishing of rule 0 was indicative that the GM should play against the players. Maybe that needs to be more explicit. My interpretation as GM has always been that due to rule 0 if the game comes down to GM versus players, GM wins. Thus there is no point in playing the antigonizing GM.

I think of it more as the DM is the referee, not playing against the rest of the players. As referee, the DM is the arbiter of the rules -- whatever he or she decides is the rule as far as that game is concerned.

Everything else above and beyond that gets into the realm of being a good DM -- making arbitrary, inconsistent, or unfair rulings are bad ideas because in the end, the point of playing a game is to have fun.

[bignate]

whenever you think fo the golden rule...

Golden Rule: the DM can change and rules or stories that he sees fit to.

you must remember the silver rule...

Silver Rule: just because you can change you rules doesnt mean you should.

[psychoticbarber]

Right. And I told you in my post how to fix that. Go over the rules outside of a session. It only takes once, then they know the rules forever.

Maybe if your players are idiots who can't understand the rules you'd have a point, but unlike most DMs I give players more credit. If they can handle every other rule, they can handle grappling, you just have to actually go over the rules, do it outside of a session so that you don't lose one.

You know, speaking as a person who has played D&D 3.x Edition for as long as it's been out, and having run games for longer than that, I'm actually kind of offended by this.

I'm not an idiot. Really, I'm not. But the grapple rules frustrate me (among, well, most of the other D&D rules, but primarily the grapple rules). I don't want to memorize them at the same time as I'm busy memorizing things that will earn me my marks and my scholarships. As a player, we could sit down and spend half an hour learning the grappling rules, but that would annoy me, because I'd feel it was wasted time, time that could have been spent moving forward in the story.

Just because I don't want to learn those rules does not mean I'm an idiot who can't learn them. You can give me all the credit you want, and I still won't want to learn them. I also tend to DM-fiat grapple situations based on compared strength and opposed rolls. Sometimes, as Rule 0 states, the goal of fun is more important the goal of rule-accuracy.

[Tormsskull]

Isn't that the point of rule 0 ?


It is, but I think the very point that they had to publish a "rule" that "gives" the DM this power is silly. Perhaps its coming from past editions, but it is easily understood that the DM is in control of the game, and has final say on all matters of game IMO.



I agree with you, a DM should not have to prove what he rules. Sometimes an explanation is nice though,

Yeah, explanations go a long way to keeping everyone on the same page.

[Kaelik]

You know, speaking as a person who has played D&D 3.x Edition for as long as it's been out, and having run games for longer than that, I'm actually kind of offended by this.

I'm not an idiot. Really, I'm not. But the grapple rules frustrate me (among, well, most of the other D&D rules, but primarily the grapple rules). I don't want to memorize them at the same time as I'm busy memorizing things that will earn me my marks and my scholarships. As a player, we could sit down and spend half an hour learning the grappling rules, but that would annoy me, because I'd feel it was wasted time, time that could have been spent moving forward in the story.

Just because I don't want to learn those rules does not mean I'm an idiot who can't learn them. You can give me all the credit you want, and I still won't want to learn them. I also tend to DM-fiat grapple situations based on compared strength and opposed rolls. Sometimes, as Rule 0 states, the goal of fun is more important the goal of rule-accuracy.

It doesn't take even 30 minutes, and that's why I suggested doing it sometime when you weren't in session (IE do you know these people outside of D&D? Do you ever sit down and talk while at scholl/watching TV/whatever?)

And honestly you could just learn them separately if you were willing to put a minimum amount of time into it.

If you are going to spend time on this board then you clearly care enough about D&D to spend time on it that supplements playing without actually being needed. One of the best uses of that time is learning the rules.

By the way, make it BAB+Str+4(size difference) for those opposed checks and you're already half way to playing by the rules.


It is, but I think the very point that they had to publish a "rule" that "gives" the DM this power is silly. Perhaps its coming from past editions, but it is easily understood that the DM is in control of the game, and has final say on all matters of game IMO.

I don't remember ever seeing it printed. I've just always assumed it was an unwritten rule, you know, because it's kinda obvious.

Learn something new every day.

[psychoticbarber]

It doesn't take even 30 minutes, and that's why I suggested doing it sometime when you weren't in session (IE do you know these people outside of D&D? Do you ever sit down and talk while at scholl/watching TV/whatever?)...

...If you are going to spend time on this board then you clearly care enough about D&D to spend time on it that supplements playing without actually being needed. One of the best uses of that time is learning the rules.

By the way, make it BAB+Str+4(size difference) for those opposed checks and you're already half way to playing by the rules.

Actually, I'm not really running any games right now except for the PbP one on the forum, but that's beside the issue. If my personal choice to ignore the grapple rules does not negatively effect the amount of fun we have (and I don't ignore it for PbP because I have time to look it up...it doesn't come up often enough for me to justify memorization), why does it matter?

That's all I'm saying. I'm just saying lay off on those of us who are having just as much fun without using some of the more complicated rules.

[valadil]

Y.

But the grapple rules frustrate me (among, well, most of the other D&D rules, but primarily the grapple rules). I don't want to memorize them at the same time as I'm busy memorizing things that will earn me my marks and my scholarships.


Last time I prepared to run a game I read the PHB and DMG and transcribed the rules I didn't know (well, the ones that would come up. No underwater combat so I skipped that) into the front page of my campaign notebook. This included grappling/tripping/bull rush rules, even though I've played a spiked chain tripper and should have it memorized. Basically anything that I found I had a hard time memorizing but should know ended up in the front of my notes so I could find it quickly. The rules there were summarized after I understood them so that I could grasp them again in about 10 seconds. It would be something like "Trip: 1. touch attack, 2. AoO if no imp trip, 3. opposed grapple check (grapple was BAB + Str + size, and was already noted above this section, 4. effects of being tripped." This helped speed up my game quite a bit and I'll do the same thing next time I DM.

[Kaelik]

"Trip: 1. touch attack, 2. AoO if no imp trip, 3. opposed grapple check (grapple was BAB + Str + size, and was already noted above this section, 4. effects of being tripped." This helped speed up my game quite a bit and I'll do the same thing next time I DM.

Except of course that grapple checks are not part of Trips, and you should probably write down the trip back possibility.

[Vectner]

To the O.P. I am glad you posted this. And I agree with you 100%. Rule 0 doesn't = DM is God.

Killing a PC is the easiest thing a DM can do, keeping them feeling like they are just squeaking by is much harder.

Like I said before it all comes down to having fun.

[Goober4473]

The point of my original post was less for house rules and campaign settings, and more for on the fly changing things to keep the game moving. If it affects a player's character directly (how an ability works, for example), I always give them a chance to argue it. It's not a request on my part. I tell them it's changed, but ask them if they have any objections, or if they have a better idea. I'm open to suggestions. If it doesn't affect the characters (NPC stats or rolls for example), I just do it.

As for house rules and campaign settings, I tend to set the rules, and tell everyone. As with the stuff about changing characters, I'm open to suggestions, but usually, my players trust me enough to accept it. It usually ends up in a fun game. Like in my current game, I set the level limit to 6. Most of the players did not like this idea, but I told them to trust me, and it would be a fun game. And now it's probably them ost fun game I've run so far. I try to accomodate what players want as much as possible, but sometimes it's not possible.

[Craig1f]

I've just got to interject ... as a DM, you better understand the grapple rules, because grappling is a very integral part of the game. In fact, grappling tends to occur more than other attacks, from what I've seen.

My cleric is always grappled, because enemies want him neutralized. Our monk has improved grapple. We fought a dragon, and fighting something larger than you is pretty much a guarantee that it is going to attempt to grapple one of you. We managed to kill a Devil in my level 6 campaign (it was supposed to chip away at us, and eventually flee, I believe) but I managed to grapple it with my barbarian and destroy it (luckily, it kept rolling below a 6 on spell failure for being in a grapple). If you're confronted by superior numbers, they're going to try to grapple you.

Grappling happens ALL THE TIME. It's just such a common thing. It's like not knowing how AoO's work.

[Goober4473]

Well, that depends on the game, the DM, and the players. I personally don't encounter grappling terribly much. It happens, but it's not as common as other things.

But still, most DMs are gonna want to learn those rules. It'll come up eventually.