PDA

View Full Version : Thinkin' About Rule 0



potatocubed
2008-11-24, 11:37 AM
So, I'm aware that there's a generally accepted principle that 'just because it can be fixed doesn't mean it isn't broken' and so any claim that "these (borked) rules are fine because you can houserule them" is false.

Then, I got to thinking. I was skimming a 4e thread a few minutes ago (so it's probably a perma-locked flame war with three banned posters in it by now) and I saw something about 4e being less fun than 3.5 because you can't dual-wield halflings.*

My initial thought was "Well, you can dual-wield halflings in 4e, you just have to make up rules for it."

Now on the one hand this is a clear case of Rule 0. I'm arguing that the lack of rules for D&D absurdity in 4th edition isn't a problem, because you can just make up rules to cover whatever crazy things the PCs do. On the other hand, stuff like dual-wielding halflings is what Rule 0 is for. Game designers do not consider dual-wielding halflings when balancing the combat rules (or the halfling rules, for that matter), and nor should they.

It seems to me that there is a line somewhere. On one side is 'without rules for this, a game is incomplete' and on the other side is 'rules for this aren't really necessary; the players can make them up if they need them'. Where exactly this line falls is a matter for debate. Or, you know, internet flame wars and swearing.

So... discuss?

*Just in case I'm not clear: I'm all behind the idea of dual-wielding halflings. And you can replace 'dual-wielding halflings' with any wacky thing you could do in 3.5 but not in 4e without affecting my point.

Oslecamo
2008-11-24, 11:43 AM
As the guy who bringed the halfling thing up, here's my answer:

It depends on the group.

Does it matter if the monk is a weak class if nobody wants to play a monk style character? Probably it doesn't matter.

Does it matter that there's no rules for dual wielding halflings if the campaign is in a world where the small races are used as weaponry by everybody else? Hell yes!

tyfon
2008-11-24, 11:43 AM
I know that it is mainly D&D d20 board, but I miss old WoD "golden rule"

"It is Your game, damn it!"

Make it up - not balanced? restrict. Too weak - poweru up. No rules - house rule something. After all, it is You campaign (there, chronicle) that matters.


On the other hand - I fully belive rule '0' - but I understand that there is no 'perfect game' (and perfect software - I work as software engineer) ;)

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-24, 11:43 AM
Ignoring the point of your post entirely, I had a player do something like that in 4e recently. Except instead of halflings, they were the unconscious and bleeding bodies of a teammate and the princess they were supposed to be rescuing.

Good times.

hamishspence
2008-11-24, 11:46 AM
thats a pretty fair summary of the whole "make up rules" "rules must be compehensive" debate.

4th ed does take the "if its fiddly and not that interesting, handwave it" Eating, for example. 3rd ed tended to go with simple, abstact, but present rules- 3 min before you drown, 3 days before thirst problem, 3 months before starvation problem.

I think so anyway.

While 4th ed does go with "cinematic" over "realistic" sometimes thats fun. Sure, the At will/Per Encounter/Per Day system may seem od for melee characters. But in the sense of making all the characters "Similar yet different" it works- its not how powers work that differs characters, its what powers you get and what you can do with them.

I like 3.5 and 4th ed almost equally, but I like different parts of them.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-24, 11:47 AM
I think a good portion of the reason I prefer 3.5 is that not only can I dual-wield Halflings, but if I need a character and only have a few minutes, I can pull out that build and know it's perfectly legal. My Halfling-swinger build will work in any game I bring it in. In 4.0, I'll have to check with the DM, get a working set of rules from him, and then rebuild to use those rules, just to swing pint-sized allies at my foes. 3.5 rules for weird stuff is universal.

Charity
2008-11-24, 11:47 AM
Ignoring the point of your post entirely, I had a player do something like that in 4e recently. Except instead of halflings, they were the unconscious and bleeding bodies of a teammate and the princess they were supposed to be rescuing.

Good times.

Unconcious partymembers, replacing the 10' pole since the advent of encumberance rules.

Vaguely on topic-
As far as I see it, it is again all about the personel, the system used is secondary (if not entirely irrelivant).

Ent
2008-11-24, 11:47 AM
As a DM I prefer having more say over things I consider outlandish.

What I mean by that is that with 3.x there were rules for EVERYTHING somewhere. (Some) players loved citing things like that and wanting it as written; even though I'm not the kind of DM who gives in to those EVERYTHINGS, the game has never been about disappointing players.

With 4th all things that fall "outside" the written rules have to be tailored to the situation and, as a beneficial side effect, fit better into the game I am running.

So I'm with ya when you say "On the other hand, stuff like dual-wielding halflings is what Rule 0 is for. Game designers do not consider dual-wielding halflings when balancing the combat rules (or the halfling rules, for that matter), and nor should they."

valadil
2008-11-24, 11:49 AM
I'm glad there aren't rules for dual wielding a pair of halflings. Even if that was something I wanted to do, can you imagine how thick the rulebooks would be if all rules up to dual wielding halflings were covered? The core books would be distributed on a ten dvd set.

I see the rules as a framework rather than a definitive list of rules. I want to be able to take the model that's out there and apply it to something new, in this case a halfling. Dual wielding is straightforward enough. Beyond that, I think it's a matter of weighing the halflings and treating them like a bigger weapon. I don't know about 4.0, but 3.5 has rules for using a weapon designed for larger creatures. I'd probably treat a halfling as one or two size categories too high depending on how the numbers look. Weight wise they're probably two sizes up, but in terms of their lenght I'd go with one size up.

Basically I want enough examples of rules that I can improvise around them without breaking the game.

Mando Knight
2008-11-24, 12:09 PM
A halfling is obviously an exotic, one handed, versatile mace! All you need to do is be a Ranger (or use one of the Ranger Multiclass feats from Martial Power), so you can use two not-Off-Hand weapons, then spend a feat to get proficiency in the use of Halflings as weapons, and you can dual-wield Halflings! The damage dice and proficiency bonus is up to the DM, though...

Moriato
2008-11-24, 12:25 PM
On the other side of that coin, why buy 4e at all when you can just make up all the rules that you want to know about on your own? At that point it's worth about as much as a blank spiral notebook.

Lycan 01
2008-11-24, 12:38 PM
I <3 Rule 0.

I've relied on it a few times during Call of Cthulhu, and I don't see why it wouldn't be any different for 4e. If worse comes to worse, I can just BS a few rules and hand them some random dice for them to roll. :smallamused:

monty
2008-11-24, 12:39 PM
And...cue edition war.

Tormsskull
2008-11-24, 12:42 PM
Rule 0 really shouldn't even be a rule. It should be obvious that the DM is going to have to weigh in on things. Putting an actual rule in the rulebooks that says "The DM can do whatever they want" actually did a disservice to the idea that the DM can do whatever they want.

If you are an experienced GM, you can make any system work. But as others have said, you really need to know your group. If you have a group of players focused on utilizing the mechanics to 'build' characters and enjoy pitting their optimization-fu against the DM's, then you really will want to stick as close to the books as possible.

If, on the otherhand, you're trying to bring a jointly-created story to life based on the characters and their actions, the exact rules tend to fade into the background and become less important. Which means you have far more leeway to do what you want/need to do as a DM to make the game run well.

Inyssius Tor
2008-11-24, 12:43 PM
Man, what is it with everyone today? Did I forget to mark Edition War Day on my calendar? I thought that was supposed to be the second Monday of each month.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-24, 12:43 PM
....Halflings are statted as weapons? I know this is the point flying straight over my head, but wouldn't they just be Improvised weapons with a 1d4 hit dice?

As to the point itself.. yeah, I really couldn't care less whether the rules make EVERY POSSIBLE CONCEPT doable. And that's coming from an Exalted player who made a Dawn caste with a Martial Arts speciality in Extras. As in wielding them. You're correct, I'd be more disappointed in a set of actual rules to govern the outlandish; Part of the point of being outlandish is to surprise.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-11-24, 12:49 PM
If you are an experienced GM, you can make any system work. But as others have said, you really need to know your group. If you have a group of players focused on utilizing the mechanics to 'build' characters and enjoy pitting their optimization-fu against the DM's, then you really will want to stick as close to the books as possible.It's not testing my build skills really, it's that one of my current characters has Skill Focus:Spellcraft, maxed ranks in Spellcraft, and a very high Int. She has both an intuitive and a high amount of training in magical lore, and she can comprehend the nature of the most powerful arcane arts on her worst day. Given that, I expect her to have a fairly good understanding of what the curse is that plagues the village. If she doesn't, I have to wonder why I bothered with all of that if the ranks would have been better spent on Diplomacy. I build characters with a certain expectation of their capabilities. Changes to the rules change my character. That's my issue with Rule 0, and it's commonality is why I don't like 4.0.

Thiel
2008-11-24, 12:50 PM
On the other side of that coin, why buy 4e at all when you can just make up all the rules that you want to know about on your own? At that point it's worth about as much as a blank spiral notebook.

Because making up the rules from scratch is hard. There's a reason we're willing to pay people to do it for us.

Also, a halfling counts as an improvised weapons dealing 2d6 damage as per table 4-7 Improvised Weapon Damage from Complete Warrior. Since it's an improvised weapon you take a -4 penalty to attack plus the relevant penalties for dual-wielding.

Jasdoif
2008-11-24, 12:50 PM
The difference is the usage.


So, I'm aware that there's a generally accepted principle that 'just because it can be fixed doesn't mean it isn't broken' and so any claim that "these (borked) rules are fine because you can houserule them" is false.That statement is generally used when talking about trumping existing rules with house rules. Which is fine in itself, but statements like "these (borked) rules are fine because you can houserule them" don't work in this context: If they were fine, why do you need the house rules to make them fine? Saying that a moldy cup of coffee is fine because you can just get a different cup of coffee doesn't make sense, either.


Now on the one hand this is a clear case of Rule 0. I'm arguing that the lack of rules for D&D absurdity in 4th edition isn't a problem, because you can just make up rules to cover whatever crazy things the PCs do. On the other hand, stuff like dual-wielding halflings is what Rule 0 is for. Game designers do not consider dual-wielding halflings when balancing the combat rules (or the halfling rules, for that matter), and nor should they.Here, you're talking about adding new capabilities. That's a different matter entirely. Homebrew, as well as the resolution any situation not explicitly addressed by the established rules, falls here.

Personally, I don't usually think of these as an application of Rule 0 in the first place; I tend to reserve the term for when the DM is aware that the established rules dictate one thing, but chooses to follow another course. Things like the first case.

Roderick_BR
2008-11-24, 01:03 PM
I know that it is mainly D&D d20 board, but I miss old WoD "golden rule"

"It is Your game, damn it!"
"Golden Rule", also known as "Rule Zero" in all other D&D games.

Sorry, had to get this out of my chest.

Tormsskull
2008-11-24, 01:14 PM
It's not testing my build skills really, it's that one of my current characters has Skill Focus:Spellcraft, maxed ranks in Spellcraft, and a very high Int. She has both an intuitive and a high amount of training in magical lore, and she can comprehend the nature of the most powerful arcane arts on her worst day. Given that, I expect her to have a fairly good understanding of what the curse is that plagues the village.


The DM still determines what your character can comprehend. The DM can set the DC to 99 if he/she really wants to give you a pseudo-mechanical reason for why your character doesn't know. Or the DM could avoid the mechanical entanglement and say "With all of your knowledge of magic and lore, you can't for the life of you figure out what this curse is".

Granted, if the DM does this to you everytime, he is being a douche, but a good DM will only do this sort of thing when the storyline requires it.

If you're the kind of player that wants static DCs and wants to know that when you build a character a certain way they are guaranteed to be able to do certain things, then you will probably really hate Rule 0.



I build characters with a certain expectation of their capabilities. Changes to the rules change my character. That's my issue with Rule 0, and it's commonality is why I don't like 4.0.

Completely understandable. This is why I tell all my players up front (and since I usually play with the same people they have come to know), "Your character will never know everything, there will always be an enemy more powerful than you, no matter how powerful you become, and the purpose of this game (as in, the game that I am DMing) is role-playing and storytelling. If you're not interested in those things, you probably will not have fun in this campaign."

As a player I expect that my abilities will work the way the books say they will work unless something strange is going on. If my abilities never or rarely work the way the books say they will, then I would become disinterested in that particular campaign.

rayne_dragon
2008-11-24, 01:19 PM
Game designers do not consider dual-wielding halflings when balancing the combat rules (or the halfling rules, for that matter), and nor should they.


I've met some game designers who do consider things like this... although generally halflings were considered two handed weapons for characters with normal strength.

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 01:26 PM
While you have a point, I always replace:


Now on the one hand this is a clear case of Rule 0. I'm arguing that the lack of rules for D&D absurdity in 4th edition isn't a problem, because you can just make up rules to cover whatever crazy things the PCs do.

with:


The rules for D20 modern are bad, but you can always houserule that they use the starwars D20 rules instead, so D20 modern is actually a pretty good system.

There are problems with the rules as they are. You're allowed to adjust for them, but really, adjust enough and you aren't playing the same game any more. In sum, 4th ed. does have problems, houserules do fix them, but the ability to fix the rules doesn't change that 4th ed. has problems.

valadil
2008-11-24, 01:33 PM
Rule 0 really shouldn't even be a rule. It should be obvious that the DM is going to have to weigh in on things. Putting an actual rule in the rulebooks that says "The DM can do whatever they want" actually did a disservice to the idea that the DM can do whatever they want.


It's obvious for people who play the game as intended. I don't like having players pull out rulebooks and flip to page 382 so they can tell me how wrong I am. Rule 0 gives me a rule I can point to to make them shut up. Players like that need to see a rule written in the book.

That said, I rarely have to play the rule 0 card. I just like to have it there, just in case. Rule 0 exists behind the glass that says "if confronted with rules lawyers, break glass."

Tormsskull
2008-11-24, 01:36 PM
Rule 0 gives me a rule I can point to to make them shut up. Players like that need to see a rule written in the book.


I don't play with players like that.

tyfon
2008-11-24, 01:39 PM
"Golden Rule", also known as "Rule Zero" in all other D&D games.

Sorry, had to get this out of my chest.

Yeah, and we should remember - every system, mechanics and table is - by definition - finite entity that cannot, and does not aim to, cover all possibilities.

Jasdoif
2008-11-24, 01:45 PM
Rule 0 really shouldn't even be a rule. It should be obvious that the DM is going to have to weigh in on things. Putting an actual rule in the rulebooks that says "The DM can do whatever they want" actually did a disservice to the idea that the DM can do whatever they want.I don't understand what you mean, here. How is it a disservice?

While it possibly should be obvious that the DM is free to do what deem necessary for the game, that doesn't mean new players are going to actually know that. Having a direct reference to the fact should both serve to inform these players prior to any instance of it coming up ('cause people can get cranky/frustrated/livid when they're shut down by a rule they didn't know existed beforehand), and dissuade any players who object to it from...well, from being players.

I would think that should improve the stability of the game.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-24, 01:53 PM
Rule zero is, in my view, allow the DM to rule actions based on their perceptions of common sense that the rules as written just don't cover. It CAN be used to rule that rolling a 1 on a jump check means you enter low taerre orbit. But then, it can rule ANYTHING. A better use, in my view, would be figuring out how far gnome could travel in a homemade glider while carrying a light load.That is, using it to cover the actions the rules don't.

Tormsskull
2008-11-24, 02:00 PM
I don't understand what you mean, here. How is it a disservice?


By making it an actual rule it reinforces the idea that rules are incredibly important. If the DM has to point to a rule in the book to justify everything he/she wants to do in the game, then it can quickly become a problem.

Again, if players enjoy that both the DM and the players need to adhere to a strict set of rules, and that is a source of enjoyment, then they should do just that. Its where a lot of the fun out of optimizing comes from. You get a strict set of rules/resources, and you have to spend them wisely to create whatever you're aiming for.

But if you're not into that, codifying a rule that supports that playstyle is detrimental.



While it possibly should be obvious that the DM is free to do what deem necessary for the game, that doesn't mean new players are going to actually know that.


I really think D&D is one game where current players should teach new players. Players learning from the books alone are probably going to be confused as all heck.



Having a direct reference to the fact should both serve to inform these players prior to any instance of it coming up ('cause people can get cranky/frustrated/livid when they're shut down by a rule they didn't know existed beforehand), and dissuade any players who object to it from...well, from being players.


But it also reinforces the idea that the rules are the most important aspect of the game, which I truly belive they are not.

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 02:08 PM
It's obvious for people who play the game as intended. I don't like having players pull out rulebooks and flip to page 382 so they can tell me how wrong I am. Rule 0 gives me a rule I can point to to make them shut up. Players like that need to see a rule written in the book.

This always irritates me unless the DM warns us all ahead of time, or changes it in favour of houserules after the session, as opposed to the "Your action fails. Why? Rule zero. And now monsters kill you after you wasted your action." One of my DMs used rule zero a ton, during the middle of session without warning. On the plus side, I kept a tape recorder on me during the game, so when he tried to pull the same stuff we did , I had him on his own ruling to rules lawyer. :smallbiggrin:

Isolder74
2008-11-24, 02:16 PM
I have a player that several times after making a ruling he would question almost every part of it. This is even if it kept him just barely alive one time. I have really considered just killing him once or twice and making him start out with a new character.

Jasdoif
2008-11-24, 02:20 PM
But it also reinforces the idea that the rules are the most important aspect of the game, which I truly belive they are not.I certainly agree that the social aspect of a social game is the most important part. But at the same time, we're talking about a rule in a rulebook. Being a rulebook, the rules are the most important things for it, those are its raison d'Ítre (not a term I get to use often). Naturally it should include such a pivotal point as a DM's prerogative to change things.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if the rulebook didn't include it as a rule, it'd firmly reinforce the false concept that all the established rules are concrete and unchangeable.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-24, 02:23 PM
The rules are not be the most important part of the game, story, characterization and and world building are. But they ARE the most important part of the system. Dungeons and Dragons, G.U.R.P.S., and Toon are systems, not games. The system is the skeleton, it is how things that HAPPEN in the game are resolved. It is the games laws of reality, allowing a neutral standard, but it is not itself the reality. The world built by the interaction, to a lesser and greater extent, of DM and players is the reality.
Rule Zero allows the DM to expand or change those laws, as they see fit, to better serve the universe created.

Zeful
2008-11-24, 02:30 PM
This always irritates me unless the DM warns us all ahead of time, or changes it in favour of houserules after the session, as opposed to the "Your action fails. Why? Rule zero. And now monsters kill you after you wasted your action." One of my DMs used rule zero a ton, during the middle of session without warning. On the plus side, I kept a tape recorder on me during the game, so when he tried to pull the same stuff we did , I had him on his own ruling to rules lawyer. :smallbiggrin:

Depends what he's changing. He's fidling around with monster stats? No you don't get to know that. Ever. He's fidling around with the multiclassing rules? It should be the second thing out of his mouth after: "I've got this great idea for a campaign."

Coidzor
2008-11-24, 02:41 PM
Is one of those things where you have to get to know the system and the people you're playing with before you're really able to do much with it.

Sort of like writing, where one needs to get to know one's self and one's writing and the rules before going off and doing those edgy, interesting things that bend the rules or outright break them, but still work.

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 02:47 PM
Depends what he's changing. He's fidling around with monster stats? No you don't get to know that. Ever. He's fidling around with the multiclassing rules? It should be the second thing out of his mouth after: "I've got this great idea for a campaign."

DM: "Fireball starts as a 30 foot radius ball that moves down the hallway, so you cant use it in confined buildings at all."
Rules lawyer (me): "No it doesn't, it starts off as a pea sized pellet that explodes on contact."
DM: "Well, I'm rule zeroing it. You spell explodes just as it leaves your hand. Reflex saves."

Rule 0 should be used at the end of the sesssion, or at the beginning of the campaign, not as something is happening.

Kalirren
2008-11-24, 02:49 PM
^^ Thank you, Ravens_cry. Apparently the idea that rules systems aren't the same as the game hasn't caught on in a widespread fashion yet. It's a little frustrating to have to explain the same damn point over and over again, so I'll just have to be more concise; which is fine, it means I'm getting better at it.

Yes, there are plenty of people out there who are playing "D&D 3.5" or "4e" in that they fail to recognize the inherent limitations of -using a game system in the first place- and thereby let whatever system they end up using unduly limit their conception of the game world and their characters' agency within it.

But by the time you're asking questions about rule zero and its applicability, you really ought to be looking past the rules set and into the way your group uses the rules. The rules only exist and have a place within the group's OOC social dynamic. So if you're angsting because you feel your DM is being tyrannical with rule zero, I have news for you: they're the DM, and by nature of being in that position, they can't stand up for you even if they would like you to. They can't single-handedly create the pressure they need to keep a game flowing. You, the player, have to provide the other part of that pressure. It is your place and duty to do so. So when they railroad, you have to assert your character's integrity. When they abuse their position and abrogate the social contract, you have to be ready to threaten to walk from the game, and do it if things don't get better.

The solution to the conundrum of "rule zero" is to realize that you are playing a game with your fellow players/DMs, and that you happen to be using a certain rulesset which forms part of your system, the other part of which is determined by the social contract of your group. The social contract of your group may not yet have matured to the kind of state I have often observed, but in the sorts of circles in which I play, the contract moves beyond the rules. In such games it's not just the DM's responsibility to use rule zero. It's also the players' responsibility to find things to do and act outside the system's provenance; in other words, to force the DM to use rule zero, to do their best to use the tools of the system to adjudicate an action that has no prior description within the system, yet falls within the reasonable bounds of IC possibility.

So to answer the OP; I think that you see a "line" because you're looking at the rules first. If you look at the game first, in terms of people cooperating to create a world in which characters have agency and world has integrity, the line disappears.

AKA_Bait
2008-11-24, 03:01 PM
So, yeah, as I'm a bit busy today I skipped reading past the first few posts to chime in on the OP topic.


It seems to me that there is a line somewhere. On one side is 'without rules for this, a game is incomplete' and on the other side is 'rules for this aren't really necessary; the players can make them up if they need them'. Where exactly this line falls is a matter for debate. Or, you know, internet flame wars and swearing.


In terms of 'without rules for this a game is incomplete' vs. 'rules aren't needed' to me is not an issue that's debatable objectivley in terms of game design. Rule systems can be chock full of individual rules or have few broad ones that rely on DM discretion. Other variations (a few sweeping rules that are explicit and leave little DM room is also possible, although difficult to design). Preferences will vary.

I think where the rule 0 issue really comes in, and where it has validity in terms of discussing system design is in the case of bad rules. By bad I mean rules that are amazingly unbalanced, game breaking or otherwise inconsistant with the rest system. These rules can exist in any type of game play and are, often as not, what folks seek eliminate with houserules. Here is where saying 'I can fix it with a houserule' isn't a valid response to a critique of the system.

Essentially, if a system is designed to be rules light, than it's not covering non-essential elements of the system is not a flaw. If there are design problems with the existing rules of a system (rather than those one preference or another things ought to exist) then there are design problems with the system, even if those problems can be fixed with houserules.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-24, 03:07 PM
DM: "Fireball starts as a 30 foot radius ball that moves down the hallway, so you cant use it in confined buildings at all."
Rules lawyer (me): "No it doesn't, it starts off as a pea sized pellet that explodes on contact."
DM: "Well, I'm rule zeroing it. You spell explodes just as it leaves your hand. Reflex saves."

Rule 0 should be used at the end of the sesssion, or at the beginning of the campaign, not as something is happening.
"With great power comes great responsibility." Is hypothetical DM consistent with this ruling? Can a BBEWizard cast pea sized exploding fireball? If so, that is DM dickery, unless the DM can provide a reasonable explanation. Like say it isn't fireball, but the specially researched spell flaming finger loogies, and the players have an opportunity to learn it themselves if they capture the spell book or something. Also, when the DM rewrites the fireball, he should give you the option of NOT doing it if it has been so ruled. Yes, this is a bit of time travel, however, the DM has just changed the universe. Your character would know what his spells would do, he isn't going to fire this spell off if it going to hurt him. The universe has changed, and apparently the character with it. The wizard or sorcerer knows his spells. If the rules of magic change throughout the universe, then so does the knowledge of the wizard and sorcerer character.
A DM who changes the rules, without telling the players,(except with stuff like monster stats and such) then punishes the player who says the rules as written don't work that way, is being a ****, and frankly, a bad DM. What would be slightly better if it went:
"Fireball starts as a 30 foot radius ball that moves down the hallway, so you cant use it in confined buildings at all."
Rules lawyer (me): "No it doesn't, it starts off as a pea sized pellet that explodes on contact."
DM: "Well, I'm rule zeroing it. Are you still sure you want to cast fireball?"
Not much, but better.

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 03:12 PM
"With great power comes great responsibility." Is hypothetical DM consistent with this ruling? Can a BBEWizard cast pea sized exploding fireball? If so, that is DM dickery, unless the DM can provide a reasonable explanation. Like say it isn't fireball, but the specially researched spell flaming finger loogies, and the players have an opportunity to learn it themselves if they capture the spell book or something. Also, when the DM rewrites the fireball, he should give you the option of NOT doing it if it has been so ruled. Yes, this is a bit of time travel, however, the DM has just changed the universe. Your character would know what his spells would do, he isn't going to fire this spell off if it going to hurt him. The universe has changed, and apparently the character with it. The wizard or sorcerer knows his spells. If the rules of magic change throughout the universe, then so does the knowledge of the wizard and sorcerer character.
A DM who changes the rules, without telling the players,(except with stuff like monster stats and such) then punishes the player who says the rules as written don't work that way, is being a ****, and frankly, a bad DM. What would be slightly better if it went:
"Fireball starts as a 30 foot radius ball that moves down the hallway, so you cant use it in confined buildings at all."
Rules lawyer (me): "No it doesn't, it starts off as a pea sized pellet that explodes on contact."
DM: "Well, I'm rule zeroing it. Are you still sure you want to cast fireball?"
Not much, but better.

I'm an optimistic rules lawyer with a tape recorder. He's not consistant, but I keep calling him out on it with his own rulings. Then I find a way to break the game using his own rules schema. My favourite is his houserule that you can't make a reflex save if you're in a confined space, so I just have the wizard constantly make walls timed to go up just before the necklace of fireballs hits the ground.

But basically, rule 0 isn't the definitive ruling like people want it to be. DM's are people too, and people can make bad decisions that the players should be allowed to overrule.

hamishspence
2008-11-24, 03:17 PM
If players can overrule the DM, wheres the Master in the name? :smallwink:

they can provide input, they can choose to not play with that DM, but overrule them? Not a great trend.

Now DM can choose to go with player's advice, and sometimes, that can lead to a more fun game- Darths and Droids made me think of this. But thats not quite the same thing.

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 03:24 PM
If players can overrule the DM, wheres the Master in the name? :smallwink:

If the master turns too tyranical, the repressed peasantry rise up and steal his iced tea. :smalltongue:


they can provide input, they can choose to not play with that DM, but overrule them? Not a great trend.

Now DM can choose to go with player's advice, and sometimes, that can lead to a more fun game- Darths and Droids made me think of this. But thats not quite the same thing.

There comes a point where a ruling is utterly daft enough that if the players unanymously agree that it's a dumb idea, it should be axed.

hamishspence
2008-11-24, 03:27 PM
or disappear, promote a new Master, and play games with Him instead.

True, DMs should be open-minded, but thats not the same thing as being automatically overruleable by the players en masse.

AKA_Bait
2008-11-24, 03:28 PM
And now for where the discussion seems to have actually moved:


I'm an optimistic rules lawyer with a tape recorder. He's not consistant, but I keep calling him out on it with his own rulings.

Um... are you doing this just to be antagoinistic? Sometimes a DM needs to make stuff up on the spot. It happens. Even to the best of DM's. Sometimes they will be inconsistant with it.


Then I find a way to break the game using his own rules schema. My favourite is his houserule that you can't make a reflex save if you're in a confined space, so I just have the wizard constantly make walls timed to go up just before the necklace of fireballs hits the ground.

That's not unreasonable. I assume that the bad guys pull similar tricks (like having 5 foot hall ways and tossing fireballs).


But basically, rule 0 isn't the definitive ruling like people want it to be. DM's are people too, and people can make bad decisions that the players should be allowed to overrule.

No, the players should not be allowed to overrule the DM. If they feel the need to do that, they should simply find another DM since they obviously don't trust the DM enough to let him/her do their job. A good DM should listen to and adjust to his players desires and needs. It should not, however, be put to a vote. If my group ever demanded this (whether I was player or DM), I'd walk out.


True, DMs should be open-minded, but thats not the same thing as being automatically overruleable by the players en masse.

Indeed. Sometimes a DM has to make an unpopular ruling for the long term good of the game. It's part of the job. The ruling shouldn't seem 'daft' but if your DM is consistantly daft then the way you vote is with your feet.

monty
2008-11-24, 03:29 PM
If the master turns too tyranical, the repressed peasantry rise up and steal his iced tea. :smalltongue:

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Because it's not a gaming session until somebody quotes Monty Python.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-24, 03:35 PM
I'm an optimistic rules lawyer with a tape recorder.

He hasn't thrown you out yet? Count your blessings.

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 03:36 PM
Um... are you doing this just to be antagoinistic? Sometimes a DM needs to make stuff up on the spot. It happens. Even to the best of DM's. Sometimes they will be inconsistant with it.

Partly to be antagonistic, but also because it gives me benefits, mechanically, if he's consistant, because I can build my character assuming those changes. Read my example above. There is literally no reason to change fireball like that, and even less reason to do so on the fly.


That's not unreasonable. I assume that the bad guys pull similar tricks (like having 5 foot hall ways and tossing fireballs).

That's precisily why we started doing it. The enemy was doing it.


No, the players should not be allowed to overrule the DM. If they feel the need to do that, they should simply find another DM since they obviously don't trust the DM enough to let him/her do their job. A good DM should listen to and adjust to his players desires and needs. It should not, however, be put to a vote. If my group ever demanded this (whether I was player or DM), I'd walk out.

The mechanical operation of a fireball and reflex saves isn't enough to stop being part of an otherwise entertaining game. It was, however, poorly done, and not exactly well thought out or well implemented.


Indeed. Sometimes a DM has to make an unpopular ruling for the long term good of the game. It's part of the job. The ruling shouldn't seem 'daft' but if your DM is consistantly daft then the way you vote is with your feet.

There is nothing in there that could possibly have benefitted the long term functioning of the campaign. And because I'm a rules lawyer that keeps track of the rule zeroes, I used it to trivialize a few encounters.


He hasn't thrown you out yet? Count your blessings.

Why would he? If he didn't have me around, he wouldn't know where we were in the plot.

Tormsskull
2008-11-24, 03:56 PM
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that if the rulebook didn't include it as a rule, it'd firmly reinforce the false concept that all the established rules are concrete and unchangeable.

Let me ask you this. Do you see a difference between:

"D&D is a roleplaying game where you take up the mantle of the steel-clad warrior, spellcasting wizard, sneaky rogue, or any of a variety of other classes. In D&D there is a Dungeon Master who is the final arbiter on all decisions and interprets all of the rules in the book as well as creates the storyline."

and

"The rules of D&D are as such:

0. The DM is allow to change anything in the game that they want.
1. All attack rolls are handled by rolling a twenty-sided die (d20) and adding your character's relevant modifier along with any miscellaneous modifiers.
2. Saving throws are handled by rolling a twenty-sided die (d20) adding your character's relevant save modifier along with any miscellanous modifiers."

?

AKA_Bait
2008-11-24, 03:59 PM
Partly to be antagonistic,

Well, stop that. Why be antagonistic toward someone who is presumably your friend?


but also because it gives me benefits, mechanically, if he's consistant, because I can build my character assuming those changes.

There are less confontational and more productive ways to ask a DM to be consistant in their rulings. Pulling out a tape recorder is pretty disrespectful. Again, this person is supposed to be your friend right?


The mechanical operation of a fireball and reflex saves isn't enough to stop being part of an otherwise entertaining game. It was, however, poorly done, and not exactly well thought out or well implemented.

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the game is entertaining enough to stay, then leave the DM alone to do their job and ask them to change the things that annoy you in a polite manner. Don't attempt to undermine them as DM.


There is nothing in there that could possibly have benefitted the long term functioning of the campaign

To be honest, I'm not really talking about that specific example. I'm talking about things like tape recording a session and playing it back mid game to embarass the DM into getting the ruling you want at that moment.


And because I'm a rules lawyer that keeps track of the rule zeroes, I used it to trivialize a few encounters.

And that was fun for everyone (including the other players and the DM)? Your DM put in probably a fair amount of effort into creating those encounters. So, by pointing out his previous short comings, you undo his work and probably leave him scrambling to fill up session time. Is it any wonder he has to make more ad-hoc rulings?


Why would he? If he didn't have me around, he wouldn't know where we were in the plot.

Because it's disrespectful. If one of my players did that to me, they would get pulled aside and talked to (strongly) the first time and tossed out of my house (and game) the second.

I'll also mention, that as DM's go (particularly ones on here) I'm a pretty strongly 'by the book' and 'give the players lots of freedom' kind of guy.

Ravens_cry
2008-11-24, 04:00 PM
But basically, rule 0 isn't the definitive ruling like people want it to be. DM's are people too, and people can make bad decisions that the players should be allowed to overrule.
Actually, I think it is, but tyrants beware, especially inconstant ones.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-24, 04:01 PM
Why would he? If he didn't have me around, he wouldn't know where we were in the plot.

Because you're the sort of rules lawyer that makes the concept look bad.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-24, 04:02 PM
Wait...why can't halflings dual wield again?

TS

vegetalss4
2008-11-24, 04:11 PM
It's obvious for people who play the game as intended. I don't like having players pull out rulebooks and flip to page 382 so they can tell me how wrong I am. Rule 0 gives me a rule I can point to to make them shut up. Players like that need to see a rule written in the book.

That said, I rarely have to play the rule 0 card. I just like to have it there, just in case. Rule 0 exists behind the glass that says "if confronted with rules lawyers, break glass."

correct me if im wrong but isn't this because you aren't playing dnd. you are playing Valadil's game:smallwink:

Woa, now im an orc, so i start to smell and become stupid:smallyuk: when do advancing in rank starts being any good?

Yukitsu
2008-11-24, 04:17 PM
Well, stop that. Why be antagonistic toward someone who is presumably your friend?

To be fair, we are a wierd bunch. We spend most of our time antagonizing eachother to various extents. You probably have to understand that PVP player killing isn't exactly uncommon or unexpected for us, and neither are TPKs to random encounters. Going through character sheets is a once per few sessions event for us. Generally, when we keep the rules consistant, this sort of nonsense stops.


There are less confontational and more productive ways to ask a DM to be consistant in their rulings. Pulling out a tape recorder is pretty disrespectful. Again, this person is supposed to be your friend right?

I wouldn't do that to a person who wasn't my freind, to be honest. However, see above. This sort of stuff is fairly standard for us.


Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the game is entertaining enough to stay, then leave the DM alone to do their job and ask them to change the things that annoy you in a polite manner. Don't attempt to undermine them as DM.

I don't believe in a take it or leave it approach. There is no reason in this case, that I can't have both my cake, and eat it too. Doubly when the one who was using fireballs wasn't my character, as I never cast evocations.


To be honest, I'm not really talking about that specific example. I'm talking about things like tape recording a session and playing it back mid game to embarass the DM into getting the ruling you want at that moment.

Would you prefer that every time we need to make reflex saves in corridors, we automatically fail, and every time an enemy tries it, they get to make a check as per normal? Because prior to my doing that, that was the norm. I could bring it up in other directions, but the DM would rather conveniently just not believe my recollection of what he had said.


And that was fun for everyone (including the other players and the DM)? Your DM put in probably a fair amount of effort into creating those encounters. So, by pointing out his previous short comings, you undo his work and probably leave him scrambling to fill up session time. Is it any wonder he has to make more ad-hoc rulings?

It was literally a series of random encounters. He rolls on the table that is level blind, so facing things well above our CR on random die rolls was actually consistantly producing TPKs. As in, we had 5 in that campaign to random encounters. Effort to encounter to effort making characters ratio is a bit off. All in all, it was probably more entertaining for everyone involved, because we didn't have to write up new characters, and the DM could advance the storyline. The fact that evertything was killing us was actually the reason for taking up rules lawyering. When the encounter isn't random, his characters aren't the type to go down to fireballs, because frankly, he's a bit of a power gamer.


Because it's disrespectful. If one of my players did that to me, they would get pulled aside and talked to (strongly) the first time and tossed out of my house (and game) the second.

I'll also mention, that as DM's go (particularly ones on here) I'm a pretty strongly 'by the book' and 'give the players lots of freedom' kind of guy.

Because of the second part, I'd likely not do the first part, but screwing over characters for absolutely no purpose in an otherwise good campaign got me to do my solution, which to be fair, worked rather swimmingly.

Obviously you come from a different gaming style, where DMing is done more responsibly, and rulings are made with some sense of respect to the players. However, in the campaigns we play, we don't really pretend to respect each other, and hence, middle of action arbitrary rules on the DM side (because really, is that all that respectful?) and tape recorder rules lawyer on the other side. It works out for us.

AKA_Bait
2008-11-24, 04:28 PM
It works out for us.

Well, if everyone is having fun then keep doing it I suppose. To each their own. Personally, if my group ran the way yours does, I'd just stop playing a go read a book.

Telonius
2008-11-24, 04:39 PM
Wait...why can't halflings dual wield again?

TS

It's not that halflings can't dual-wield. It's that Blorg the Burly can't dual-wield halflings.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-24, 05:22 PM
Of course it all depends on the group. However, the main design distinction between 4E and earlier editions is this:

1E - 3E: your character has the ability to (create fire, do a feinting flurry, cause divine intervention, whatever) which usually has mechanical effects as described. In cases where that didn't make sense, the ability had strange results, or simply no effect.
The mechanical effects could be vague, because the DM could always make something up if players found it necessary, and it was really okay if not every ability had a meaningful effect in mechanics.

4E: your character has the mechanical effect to (do 2d6 damage, give opponent -2 to AC, cure 1d6 hit points, whatever) which usually can be fluffed as described. In cases where that didn't make sense, the ability had strange fluff, or simply no fluff.
The fluff text could be vague, because the DM could always make something up if players found it necessary, and it was really okay if not every mechanical effect had a meaningful description in character.

hamishspence
2008-11-24, 05:25 PM
I think 3.5 ed had an element of that- how do you "trip" a gelatinous cube anyway? You end up making something up- hit it just right so that it is temporarily disabled.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-24, 05:29 PM
I think 3.5 ed had an element of that- how do you "trip" a gelatinous cube anyway? You end up making something up- hit it just right so that it is temporarily disabled.

It does. There is an obvious line of evolution there. I'm quite sure that several of the designers and writers of the later 3.5 books went on to design 4E (e.g. it is rumored that TOB and TOM are essentially tests for 4E).

Mind you, I'm not saying it's a bad thing (it's not, 4E is fun to play). I'm just pointing out that earlier editions have a design based on fluff, with crunch added in later, whereas 4E has a design based on crunch, with fluff added in later.

hamishspence
2008-11-24, 05:33 PM
ToM- maybe a bit less so than ToB. one of the two preview books openly stated they converted some of their prototype mechanics into 3.5 and made that into ToB.

ToM mechanics don't closely resemble anything from 4th ed. Though I suspect Shadow using classes, when they come out, will owe something to it.

I kinda wish Bard had been a shadow user- the Shadowking Faerun novels suggested that shadow magic and bards go together. Then there is Shadow subschool of illusion.

Kurald Galain
2008-11-24, 05:36 PM
ToM- maybe a bit less so than ToB.
True enough. But that may also be because the most common reaction to TOB on the message boards is that it's awesome, overpowered, or both, whereas the most common reaction to TOM appears to be that at least two of the three systems in there suck.

hamishspence
2008-11-24, 05:40 PM
Innovative, but yes, they could have done with more work.

Magic of Incarnum was unusual- very new concept compared to most 3.5 classes, and avoided spreading out the book- one system- 3 classes.

i kinda hope a "soul" power source will come out eventually- I liked the concepts.

and No Incarnum God called James Brown :smallbiggrin:

Doomsy
2008-11-24, 06:15 PM
Some people find playing around with and finding ways around the rules to be a very fun and almost essential part of the game for them.

Some people like to just play the game and not mess with the rules much.

Neither is exclusive to the other, but certain styles of both DMing and mechanics tend to lean towards one or the other. There was an old Magic The Gathering 'player guide' of Spike, Timmy, and blah blah that basically outlined this argument exactly and can easily be applied to these kind of edition arguments with the addition of the DM as another axis. I need to try to find it again, it really did hit the roleplaying profiles as much as the card gamers.

Devils_Advocate
2008-11-24, 09:15 PM
Personally, I feel that the ideal system should include plenty of guidelines on how to create good new rules. Meta-rules, if you will: Rules that game mechanics themselves should follow. I'd guess that my ideal RPG rulebook would be about half regular rules (to cover common things and serve as examples), and half meta-rules (guidelines for making new skills, feats, monsters, items, classes, templates, etc.; whatever the system uses).


If you are an experienced GM, you can make any system work. But as others have said, you really need to know your group. If you have a group of players focused on utilizing the mechanics to 'build' characters and enjoy pitting their optimization-fu against the DM's, then you really will want to stick as close to the books as possible.

If, on the otherhand, you're trying to bring a jointly-created story to life based on the characters and their actions, the exact rules tend to fade into the background and become less important. Which means you have far more leeway to do what you want/need to do as a DM to make the game run well.
Those approaches to the game are not mutually exclusive.

In a game combining both approaches, conflict between the protagonists and antagonists in the story is implemented via (hopefully friendly) competition between the players and the GM. It's an engaging tactical challenge sort of like chess, and the unpredictability of the results adds an element of suspense and excitement. The downside is that this can produce results dissatisfying to everyone involved. But in such cases the results can simply be changed; who's gonna argue? If everyone including the GM would rather that that PC be at -5 hit points instead of dead, then hey, he's at -5 in spite of the rules. The problem with that is that it takes away an exciting element of risk.

If you prefer a cooperative rather than a competitive storytelling game, then you can decide the outcome of characters' actions based on group consensus. The problem comes when players can't reach a consensus. When that happens, you can take a vote or play paper-rock-scissors or something. Anyway, there's no real need for a bunch of detailed rules. The drawback to this sort of game is that you lose the challenge of trying to force events in the direction you want. It's not so much of a game in the traditional sense; ideally, players (and the GM) aren't in competition with each other. It's likely that there won't be lots of problem-solving, but hopefully there will be plenty of characterization and character development.

As a third option, the GM can simply decide the results of everything that every character attempts, based on what seems reasonable and on what the GM feels fits the story. This means that events will tend to unfold according to how the GM feels they should unfold. In other words, this is great for what would in other contexts be termed "railroading", but in this context probably shouldn't be. Railroading is basically the GM denying players opportunities they should have to steer the plot. In this case, it's understood that the GM decides how the plot goes, and players who don't like that shouldn't (and hopefully won't) play in this sort of game.

And of course, you can have a rules-light or rule-free hack-and-slash dungeon crawl, too. The challenge for the players is to figure out the weaknesses of the monsters they face, how to bypass traps, and how to solve whatever puzzles they encounter. (Stereotypical dungeon puzzles have no place in most games with any verisimilitude, of course, as a dungeon's designer shouldn't want to keep everyone but smart people out (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlySmartPeopleMayPass), he should want to keep everyone but him and his allies out.)


I really think D&D is one game where current players should teach new players. Players learning from the books alone are probably going to be confused as all heck.
Oh no! If new players start playing D&D on their own, they might form their own ideas about what makes it run well, completely uninfluenced by preconceptions built up over generations about how it's supposed to work! If they aren't instructed how to play properly, they might do things WRONG!

There isn't really anything all that confusing about how D&D (or tabletop RPGs in general) works. Each player decides the actions of a fictional character in the fictional game world. The GM decides the actions of everyone else. These characters are created according to the rules given for character creation. Actions are resolved according to the corresponding rules. The PCs meet up, they go and do things together. Probably involving killing monsters and taking their stuff. They travel around, they talk to people, they buy things, they sell things, they use things, they fight things.

It's really not all that terribly complicated.


Let me ask you this. Do you see a difference between:

"D&D is a roleplaying game where you take up the mantle of the steel-clad warrior, spellcasting wizard, sneaky rogue, or any of a variety of other classes. In D&D there is a Dungeon Master who is the final arbiter on all decisions and interprets all of the rules in the book as well as creates the storyline."

and

"The rules of D&D are as such:

0. The DM is allow to change anything in the game that they want.
1. All attack rolls are handled by rolling a twenty-sided die (d20) and adding your character's relevant modifier along with any miscellaneous modifiers.
2. Saving throws are handled by rolling a twenty-sided die (d20) adding your character's relevant save modifier along with any miscellanous modifiers."

?
I do. The latter says that the DM gets to change the rules, while the former just says that the Dungeon Master is supposed to arbitrate. Overturning and replacing a rule is not the same as carefully applying the rule. It's the opposite, it's not applying the rule. So if the DM does that when the rulebook says the first thing up there, a player can legitimately complain that the DM is stepping outside the bounds of his authority. Like how a judge is stepping outside the bounds of his authority if he decrees that Tuesday is henceforth to be meatloaf day, because he likes meatloaf. If he says that that's his interpretation of a leash law, that does not in fact give it any force because it obviously isn't actually an interpretation of that law and no one is going to take him seriously.

The role of judge is just not the same thing as the role of dictator, and it's really pretty arguable which role is best for a GM to serve. It probably depends on the GM in question, really. But anyway, making clear which role the GM is supposed to have can prevent a whole lot of disputes.


Granted, if the DM does this to you everytime, he is being a douche, but a good DM will only do this sort of thing when the storyline requires it.
The storyline only requires anything if the storyline is something determined by the DM ahead of time. As opposed to being created by decisions made by the players and the DM as the game progresses.

(Hmm. You're the only one I quoted in this thread. I'm not picking on you, though, it's just that you made all of the comments I felt like replying to. Be proud. :smalltongue:)

Captain Six
2008-11-24, 11:38 PM
I've always gone by the philosophy that there are no rules, just a really long list of suggestions.

Tormsskull
2008-11-25, 08:31 AM
Those approaches to the game are not mutually exclusive.


Of course not, but they are not truly inclusive either. Most groups tend to place a preference or emphasis on one or the other.



If everyone including the GM would rather that that PC be at -5 hit points instead of dead, then hey, he's at -5 in spite of the rules. The problem with that is that it takes away an exciting element of risk.


That's more deciding things based on group consensus. It can work, but its not a traditional use of Rule 0.



Anyway, there's no real need for a bunch of detailed rules. The drawback to this sort of game is that you lose the challenge of trying to force events in the direction you want. It's not so much of a game in the traditional sense; ideally, players (and the GM) aren't in competition with each other.


I'd hesitate to say that the players and GM are in competition with each other in the traditional sense of the game.

Also, even if a DM liberally changes the rules and make ad hoc decisions, players still have the challenge of trying to force events in the direction they want. What they don't have is the ability to force the GM in the direction they want.



Each player decides the actions of a fictional character in the fictional game world. The GM decides the actions of everyone else. These characters are created according to the rules given for character creation. Actions are resolved according to the corresponding rules.


Everything in the above quote could easily be explained in a rulebook.



The PCs meet up, they go and do things together. Probably involving killing monsters and taking their stuff. They travel around, they talk to people, they buy things, they sell things, they use things, they fight things.


This, not so much. So far in your explanation you really haven't said much of anything regarding roleplaying. And since D&D is a roleplaying game, it probably should be mentioned. This is what I mean by current players should teach new players. Its very difficult to explain what roleplaying is in writing.



It's really not all that terribly complicated.


Playing D&D as simply a game, not a roleplaying game, is not terribly complicated, I agree.



I do. The latter says that the DM gets to change the rules, while the former just says that the Dungeon Master is supposed to arbitrate.


Thank you, that's what I was trying to get at. See, 3e and 4e specifically spelled things out in lists, or bold words, to explain rules. Prior editions did not. You picked right up on the fact that the rule, stated as 'Rule 0' was important and gave the DM specific abilities to change the rules.

Earlier editions often just wrote to the reader. They didn't clearly specify "this is a rule, this is not a rule". I think 3e and 4e have sort of conditioned players to ignore blocks of text as 'fluff' text and focus on the important things (in their minds), i.e. mechanical rules.



The storyline only requires anything if the storyline is something determined
by the DM ahead of time.

As opposed to being created by decisions made by the players and the DM as the game progresses.


These two are not mutually exclusive. The DM can create a storyline based on decisions that the players make in game, without the players actually making any decisions about the storyline directly.

I.E. A DM can introduce a rival gang into a city if the PCs joined a gang or formed a gang. This is the DM responding to the players.

This is opposed to the players saying "We'd like to find a magic artifact" to which the DM then introduces a magic artifact.

Indirect affect on storyline versus direct affect on storyline.



(Hmm. You're the only one I quoted in this thread. I'm not picking on you, though, it's just that you made all of the comments I felt like replying to. Be proud. :smalltongue:)

I'd be proud but I've never heard of you :smalltongue:. Don't worry about picking on me, I have thick skin.

valadil
2008-11-25, 10:21 AM
correct me if im wrong but isn't this because you aren't playing dnd. you are playing Valadil's game:smallwink:

Woa, now im an orc, so i start to smell and become stupid:smallyuk: when do advancing in rank starts being any good?

Why yes, yes it is. I'm impressed you remembered that :-D. The whole Valadil's game instead of D&D thing is just something I do to take rule 0 one step further.

I'd also like ot point out that a GM who abuses rule 0 is probably the same kind of GM who would abuse the rest of the game too. I mean, if they change fireball just because they don't want to be wrong, what's to stop them from using enemies with spells 2 levels higher than those of the PCs? An abusive GM is a jerk with or without rule 0.

Yukitsu
2008-11-25, 11:30 AM
That's not really fair. My DM isn't a jerk, even though he does those things. The games are overall fun, he just has a view of how things work and can't seem to understand that the players don't know it intuitively, and has a terrible memory. As such, when it's brought out in the middle of combat, it's irritating, and even more so when he flips on it. Doesn't make the rest of the game bad.