There is no "Rule Zero"!

[Firechanter]

I keep reading references to "rule zero", in the sense of "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

In the gaming circles I usually frequent, this school of thought is widely scorned.
The DM is bound by the same rules as the players. This whole "Rule Zero" crap is _so_ "20th century" and should be purged from all game books.

(Actually, in these circles, there is also a "Rule Zero", but an entirely different one: "Do not play with douchebags")

The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else. If he is allowed to cheat, so is everyone else. Since that would destroy the game, the only possible consequence is: the GM must not cheat.
The GM has a lot of flexibility without cheating or bending the rules. If he wants the BBEG to have some power that's not in the books, he can create it. D&D of all games has probably the least call for this, because there are thousands of everything: PrCs, feats, spells. But that only aside.

Above all, the GM must not castrate a player character by denying him the benefit of a feature the player "paid" for, just because it would ruin his precious plot. If there's nothing in the rules that can stop the player from busting your plot -- well then build a better one for crying out loud!

D&D offers a plethora of possibilities, both to the DM and the players. It is impossible to know them all by heart. So it can very well happen that a player comes up with something that stumps you. When that happens, either concede defeat or ask for a time-out to come up with a way to continue your adventure. Over time, you will learn.

If on the other hand you are concerned that something a player does is "overpowered", it is still bad style to just forbid it. Instead of confrontation, try to build a consensus. Either let yourself be convinced that the thing is not breaking the game, or convince the player that it is. (Hint: the statement "anything you use, the NPCs may use, too" usually works wonders.)

Granted, there are a lot of ways in 3.X to take the game to a state of "What am I even doing here?". Usually it suffices to point out that the game becomes pointless and you will get your players' support to remove the broken element.
If a player _is_ hell-bent on breaking the game, invoke the new Rule Zero (regarding douchebags).

So much for now. Have fun. ^^

[Kurald Galain]

You should try playing Paranoia. That is all.

[dsmiles]

You should try playing Paranoia. That is all.

Hehehehee.
According to his reasoning, they couldn't. Friend computer would seem like a douchebag to them, instead of the loving companion and mentor that it really is.

[BRC]

I say there is a Rule Zero. A GM can, at any point, do anything within the game.

It dosn't mean they were right to do it. It dosn't mean they should have done it, or that the Players need to just sit there and accept it without complaining, but they CAN do it.

Also, failure to obey rule Zero is Treason, punishable by summary termination. Knowledge of rule zero is Treason, punishable by summary termination. Happiness is Mandatory, have a nice daycycle.

[DeltaEmil]

The gm should, nay, must use rule 0 to make the game an enjoyable experience for all.

The players should accept the rule 0 if it can and will lead to an enjoyable experience for all.

[Morph Bark]

In Exalted, DnD's Rule Zero is Rule Two.

[Yukitsu]

Rule 0 either means the game designers need to know their game better, or that the DM needs to know the rules of the game better.

[Doc Roc]

I keep reading references to "rule zero", in the sense of "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

In the gaming circles I usually frequent, this school of thought is widely scorned.
The DM is bound by the same rules as the players. This whole "Rule Zero" crap is _so_ "20th century" and should be purged from all game books.

(Actually, in these circles, there is also a "Rule Zero", but an entirely different one: "Do not play with douchebags")

The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else. If he is allowed to cheat, so is everyone else. Since that would destroy the game, the only possible consequence is: the GM must not cheat.
The GM has a lot of flexibility without cheating or bending the rules. If he wants the BBEG to have some power that's not in the books, he can create it. D&D of all games has probably the least call for this, because there are thousands of everything: PrCs, feats, spells. But that only aside.

Above all, the GM must not castrate a player character by denying him the benefit of a feature the player "paid" for, just because it would ruin his precious plot. If there's nothing in the rules that can stop the player from busting your plot -- well then build a better one for crying out loud!

Welcome aboard the brave ship GamesBetterNotSuck. You'll find a priority pass to the dining hall in your luggage, as well as a sufficiently high clearance to get you anywhere but the bridge. We hope you enjoy your flight! More seriously, it's always seemed to me like Rule Zero was an excuse for very poorly written systems, more than anything else. And what it really meant was You Will Have To Write Your Own Game By Inches.

In Exalted, DnD's Rule Zero is Rule Two.

Rule 0 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect balance.
Rule 1 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect hope.

[Zaydos]

Your invisibility's duration is up, you start to become translucent and indistinct Giving a player some warning/a round of freebie at the end of invisibility so that they can RP it and/or not get killed. Rule 0.

You can't shoot a bow from cover without suffering a -10 Not letting archers work because you wanted them to melee the encounter. Rule 0.

Rule 0 is a tool. Use it well and it makes the game more enjoyable. Use it badly and it makes the players talk about how bad of a DM you were and how they don't want to play with you again. The thing is, ultimately you are referee and judge, you are the arbiter of rules and the creator of rules. Rule 0 is the same rule that allows homebrew.

Then again I'll admit there's really a rule more important than Rule 0. Don't be douchebags.

[Doc Roc]

Your invisibility's duration is up, you start to become translucent and indistinct Giving a player some warning/a round of freebie at the end of invisibility so that they can RP it and/or not get killed. Rule 0.

You can't shoot a bow from cover without suffering a -10 Not letting archers work because you wanted them to melee the encounter. Rule 0.

The second one sounds completely awful, and a perfect example of what's wrong with this mindset.

[dsmiles]

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Rule 0 is an integral part of any RPG. Say, for instance, that a player wants his character to swing on a chandelier, leap off at the apex of its swing, and vault onto the giant's head, pointy object first. (Why there's a giant in a room with a chandelier, I'll never know, but it's as good an example as any.)

Find me a system that has a written rule for this specific action.

Rule 0 isn't just about the DM/GM/ST/Whatever. It's about the players' epicness as well.

[Morph Bark]

Rule 0 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect balance.
Rule 1 is: Thou shalt not play Exalted and expect hope.

Rule -1 is: Thine expectations shalt be shattered by playing Exalted.

[Zaydos]

The second one sounds completely awful, and a perfect example of what's wrong with this mindset.

I agree wholeheartedly, my point was it's a double edged sword. The kind of GM that's going to do that is going to do it regardless, though.

[BRC]

The second one sounds completely awful, and a perfect example of what's wrong with this mindset.

Let me define how I see Rule 0.

Rule 0 is not an Excuse, it's not a Mindset, it's not a shield, it's a tool.
I CAN walk up to a random person in the street and smack them with a baseball bat. It dosn't mean I should, or that I won't suffer consequences, but I can. I can use Rule 0 to kill my party, dosn't mean I should.
If a designer releases a flawed game, and says "Oh, well, GM's will just fix it with Rule 0", they are a bad designer.

If a DM arbitrarily declares that the Archer takes a -10 penalty for trying to use cover, then they are a bad DM. It is as simple as that.

[nyarlathotep]

I would agree with the original poster with one caveat, rule zero and house rules are not the same thing. As long as you lay out your alterations to the system from the very beginning and both the players and the NPCs follow them than altering the system is fine, as long as it is done because you think it will lead to more fun (the real kind not the dwarf fort kind, unless you're running a df game but that's a different issue).

Falling back on rule zero in the middle of a game is a sign that the GM has screwed up and is trying to fix something by invalidating the PCs ideas or successes. This is bad GMing and bad story telling. If you screw up and the PCs have you beat you should find a way to let the story evolve organically rather than saying "the players rules are not my rules".

Rule -1 is: Thine expectations shalt be shattered by playing Exalted.

Rule -3 thou shall make condescending remarks about how much better Exalted is than D&D
Rule -2 thou shalt play Nobilis instead of this game.

[Doc Roc]

Let me define how I see Rule 0.

Rule 0 is not an Excuse, it's not a Mindset, it's not a shield, it's a tool.
I CAN walk up to a random person in the street and smack them with a baseball bat. It dosn't mean I should, or that I won't suffer consequences, but I can. I can use Rule 0 to kill my party, dosn't mean I should.
If a designer releases a flawed game, and says "Oh, well, GM's will just fix it with Rule 0", they are a bad designer.

If a DM arbitrarily declares that the Archer takes a -10 penalty for trying to use cover, then they are a bad DM. It is as simple as that.

The thing is, if it is a tool, it is not a rule. It's a systems management mechanism, and should have rules and guidelines, instead of being a pithy thing for pithing yourself.

[FelixG]

The gm should, nay, must use rule 0 to make the game an enjoyable experience for all.

The players should accept the rule 0 if it can and will lead to an enjoyable experience for all.

This is... completely wrong...

In one of my favorite games I play in using "Rule 0" is generally grounds to be put on a DM suspension and review.

To each their own, but a Gm needent use Rule 0 to make a game enjoyable at all.

[dsmiles]

Falling back on rule zero in the middle of a game is a sign that the GM has screwed up and is trying to fix something by invalidating the PCs ideas or successes. This is bad GMing and bad story telling. If you screw up and the PCs have you beat you should find a way to let the story evolve organically rather than saying "the players rules are not my rules".

Again, Rule 0 is not solely about the GM/DM/ST/WE. If a player wants to do something totally awesome that's not covered by the rules how do you handle it? Tell them they can't do it because it's not in the rules? That's crappy DMing right there. Rule 0 goes both ways.

[Britter]

Not a fan of Rule Zero. And I know of plenty of systems that don't have a Rule Zero. I agree with the assertion that Rule Zero is a stop-gap measure instituted to shore up weak game design.

Now, on the other side of the argument, a good GM can make it work. But in a system that is more tightly engineered and explains the method for interpreting and executing player actions, even a less-skilled GM can provide consistent, clear rulings.

As I seem to be saying a lot of late (in regard to the base-line assumptions of DnD not extending across the entirety of the gaming hobby), Rule Zero is an element of a particular school of game design, and that school makes several assumptions about how games are played (as all systems do, of course). Because there are many other systems that do not operate under those assumptions, the idea that Rule Zero is applicable across the board is simply not correct.

[nyarlathotep]

Again, Rule 0 is not solely about the GM/DM/ST/WE. If a player wants to do something totally awesome that's not covered by the rules how do you handle it? Tell them they can't do it because it's not in the rules? That's crappy DMing right there. Rule 0 goes both ways.

You do bring up a good point, but there is a difference between making ad hoc rules for something that the system does not cover and changing how existing rules function. I guess it would be better to say don't use rule 0 as a crutch to cover your own mistakes.

[dsmiles]

Not a fan of Rule Zero. And I know of plenty of systems that don't have a Rule Zero. I agree with the assertion that Rule Zero is a stop-gap measure instituted to shore up weak game design.

Now, on the other side of the argument, a good GM can make it work. But in a system that is more tightly engineered and explains the method for interpreting and executing player actions, even a less-skilled GM can provide consistent, clear rulings.

As I seem to be saying a lot of late (in regard to the base-line assumptions of DnD not extending across the entirety of the gaming hobby), Rule Zero is an element of a particular school of game design, and that school makes several assumptions about how games are played (as all systems do, of course). Because there are many other systems that do not operate under those assumptions, the idea that Rule Zero is applicable across the board is simply not correct.

Those would be some awfully thick rulebooks, in order to cover every imaginable action the characters could take. I'd hate to have to read 'em.

Sure, some systems may not need a "Rule 0," but there are systems that do need it, and there are people who enjoy those systems regardless of their shortcomings.

[Britter]

Those would be some awfully thick rulebooks, in order to cover every imaginable action the characters could take. I'd hate to have to read 'em.

Sure, some systems may not need a "Rule 0," but there are systems that do need it, and there are people who enjoy those systems regardless of their shortcomings.

Again, respectfully, you are assuming all games are operating on the assumptions of DnD and similar games. You don't need rules for everything to invalidate the need for a Rule Zero. The games I play these days have rulebooks much smaller then the PHB/DMG combo of any edition of DnD.

And I am all for people having fun, regardless of system. So I am not going to tell you or anyone else that they are having badwrongfun at their gaming table, regardless of system used.

[Katana_Geldar]

I've found Rule 0 can be very useful for special situations where the rules are not specific, simple because they were too pedantic to be written that way.

I'm running an encounter at the moment involving portals, portals that take people to different locations depending on a random diceroll. Sounds simple, right?

Wrong.

This portal is in a doorway and people want to know what it looked like. I made is black and opaque to preserve the mystery.

The adventure doesn't cover how often the portal changes, whether it is on a person or time, or if someone can stick their head in and see. So I made it in rounds, if two players enter one right after the other they go to the same place. Also, if a player sticks something in or part of themselves in, it or them gets sucked through. The former was a mechanics thing so I could work out if players could go to the same place, the latter is so players don't get half-arsed about going through. I just have to make sure I am consistant with the rules and it's a very valid implentation of Rule 0.

You can't think of everything at the time, you better have a good answer for that loophole the players questioned.

As for Paranioa, I make it clear to the players that I am god and they dare not question me.

[Britter]

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. Rule 0 is an integral part of any RPG. Say, for instance, that a player wants his character to swing on a chandelier, leap off at the apex of its swing, and vault onto the giant's head, pointy object first. (Why there's a giant in a room with a chandelier, I'll never know, but it's as good an example as any.)

Find me a system that has a written rule for this specific action.

Rule 0 isn't just about the DM/GM/ST/Whatever. It's about the players' epicness as well.

Apologies for the double post. This is a good example of what I am talking about with poor design leading to the need for Rule Zero.

The poster is operating under the assumption that there needs to be a specific rule to do the above action, or that the above action must be adjudicated by Rule Zero.

There is, in fact, a spectrum of options between those two points.

For example, in my Burning Wheel game, I would make this a linked test between a characters Speed stat, and Weapon skill. Per the rules of Burning Wheel, I would assign the difficulty based on the example Obstacles in the book, let the player know what needs to be rolled for success, and let the dice hit the table.

Burning Wheel doesn't try to cover all possible actions that can be taken. Instead of listing explicit actions, it provides the GM and the PCs a framework for building tests in a consistent manner. There are some specific rules in the game, like Intent and Task, and Say Yes or Roll the Dice, that allow the system to either bypass unnecessary rolls entirely or adjudicate otherwise unusual situations based on what the player is trying to accomplish and what stat or skill they are trying to use.

There are many other systems with other response to the situation, covering a very wide spectrum.

I reject the idea that a players actions must fall into a specific rules heading. I also reject the idea of Rule Zero. There are a number of different middle-grounds that fall between the two.

Edit: Also, I have no issues at all with games like Paranoia. There is a specific design element there that works wonderfully for what it is intended to do.

[Doc Roc]

I've found Rule 0 can be very useful for special situations where the rules are not specific, simple because they were too pedantic to be written that way.

I'm running an encounter at the moment involving portals, portals that take people to different locations depending on a random diceroll. Sounds simple, right?

Wrong.

This portal is in a doorway and people want to know what it looked like. I made is black and opaque to preserve the mystery.

The adventure doesn't cover how often the portal changes, whether it is on a person or time, or if someone can stick their head in and see. So I made it in rounds, if two players enter one right after the other they go to the same place. Also, if a player sticks something in or part of themselves in, it or them gets sucked through. The former was a mechanics thing so I could work out if players could go to the same place, the latter is so players don't get half-arsed about going through. I just have to make sure I am consistant with the rules and it's a very valid implentation of Rule 0.

You can't think of everything at the time, you better have a good answer for that loophole the players questioned.

As for Paranioa, I make it clear to the players that I am god and they dare not question me.

So, you'd punish me brutally for sending my familiar through to check out a portal?

[LOTRfan]

So, you'd punish me brutally for sending my familiar through to check out a portal?

Well, what sort of animal abuse is that, sending familiars as scouts?

[Katana_Geldar]

So, you'd punish me brutally for sending my familiar through to check out a portal?

That actually happened! The wizard sent his familar through and he didn't come back without being summoned. Then, when he came back it was clear he had been attacked.

[BRC]

The thing is, if it is a tool, it is not a rule. It's a systems management mechanism, and should have rules and guidelines, instead of being a pithy thing for pithing yourself.

First of all, Rules are Tools. They are Tools for playing the game and telling the story. BaB is a Tool for making Fighters better at hitting things with heavy objects than Wizards. HP is a Tool for keeping track of how much damage you can take.
Alright, here are some Rules and Guidelines for Rule 0:

Rules
The GM may overrule the rules of the system, or invent their own rules to address situations not addressed by the system.
Guidelines
The GM should only invoke Rule 0 in the interest of making the game a more enjoyable experience for all involved.
__________________________________________________ ________________
Rule 0 is not an excuse for designing a bad game any more than saying "A good mechanic can fix it" is an excuse for building a bad car or saying "If they get to a Doctor they'll be fine" is an excuse for stabbing somebody.

Lets say there is a flaw in the system, let's say I'm playing Dnd 3.5 and I come up with some simplified grapple rules that I use. Rule 0 says I can override the rules written in the book to use my own.

Now, here's the thing, Rule 0 is NOT the problem. Rule 0 is my personal solution to the problem, the problem is bad game design.

If I ever meet a designer who intentionally leaves flaws in their game, saying that "GM's can fix that with Rule 0", I will smack them in the face with a bag of D4's. Removing Rule 0 does not help these cases.

Here, let's add another Guideline.
A Designer should not assume that Rule 0 will be used in their games.


Or here's something else, what if there is a well designed system I want to modify. What if I think the system is fun, it's just got a little too much bookkeeping for my group, so I use Rule 0 to ignore some things we're supposed to keep track of and make the game easier to run.

Rule 0 is a Treatment (Not a Cure, a Treatment) for Bad Game Design, not the cause of it.

[erikun]

Well, I have several points against the idea of no "Rule Zero". The first is that rule 0 is scorned for allowing the DM to 'cheat', yet great concession is given to the DM who can come up with an alternate reason for something happening or not happening. The Big Bad being invincible while monologuing is rule 0 and bad, but the Big Bad being invincible for a short time due to a super secret potion that only he knows and monologuing due to his arrogance is 'creating a new power' and fully within DM rights. Not getting to roll to spot the trap is rule 0, but the trap being so small that it warrants a +20 DC (and thus, any retroactive roll would fail) is being flexible. -10 to hit with archery is bad DMing, but -10 to hit with archery due to some foliage in the way is good DMing. It seems to me that the problem isn't DM cheating, but DMs coming up with creative excuses.

As for castrating the player, what is the difference between saying that scrying does not work due to rule 0, and saying that it doesn't work due to some creative excuse? This could be anything, from a curse blocking divination to magical protection to divine intervention to having a metal plate in the character's head. Again, the situations are identical (especially as the DM wouldn't be telling the players why the scrying failed in this case) but rule 0 is "cheating" while DM flexibility is "creative".


And there are genuinely valid reasons for rule 0. What if a player forgot that dwarves get a bonus with Stonecunning, which would have detected the unstable wall that just buried half the party? What if the DM forgot the Paladin's new Boots of Elvenkind, which would have allowed them to pass the guard post silently? What if someone just read a rule wrong or wrote something incorrectly on their character sheet? Is everyone just supposed to say "Oops, sorry. We'll remember next time."? Remembering all the rules takes time, and nobody does it correctly - the idea behind a "Rule Zero" is to allow the DM to correct faulty or silly situations that would otherwise block the game. Or should everyone play in a world with Pun-Pun and Drown Healing, because the (very silly) combination or rules allow it?

If on the other hand you are concerned that something a player does is "overpowered", it is still bad style to just forbid it. Instead of confrontation, try to build a consensus. Either let yourself be convinced that the thing is not breaking the game, or convince the player that it is. (Hint: the statement "anything you use, the NPCs may use, too" usually works wonders.)

The most common problems with "overpowered" options is not DM challanges but how the party handles them. It is a trivial matter to just throw higher and higher CR monsters until the proper challange balance is achieved. It is far harder for a Samurai/Monk multiclass character to stand up to these increased challanges next to Bear-rider BearDruidZilla and his friend, KnowAllSpells Erudite.

What's more, new players (yes, there are new players!) have an even tougher time trying to figure out complex issues like intra-party balance when they aren't even familiar with their own class. The DM's ability to ban, say, confusing or extraneous options definitely help them in making a decision, and with not being overshadowed in their first game.

Stating that you can use a Tainted Scholar/Ur-Priest/Dweomerkeeper as well doesn't help these problems one bit. In fact, there are likely very few games where free Wishes are not a major problem.

[Katana_Geldar]

What's more, new players (yes, there are new players!) have an even tougher time trying to figure out complex issues like intra-party balance when they aren't even familiar with their own class. The DM's ability to ban, say, confusing or extraneous options definitely help them in making a decision, and with not being overshadowed in their first game.

Stating that you can use a Tainted Scholar/Ur-Priest/Dweomerkeeper as well doesn't help these problems one bit. In fact, there are likely very few games where free Wishes are not a major problem.

I do this with 4E and D&D, there are some classes that new players are not allowed to play. And you don't make your first character, but these are more house rules than Rule 0. Rule 0 is tool.