Should rule 0 ever be bought up.

[Emperor Demonking]

When debating something on this forum should rule 0 ever be bought up?

[Green Bean]

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

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

[Mr. Friendly]

I agree. Theoretical discussions; Rule 0 is essentially meaningless.

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

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

[Woot Spitum]

When debating the RAW, bringing up Rule 0 is a fallacy. RAW discussions deal with what CAN be done, not what SHOULD be done.

[Matthew]

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

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

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

[Morty]

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

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

[Vva70]

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

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

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

[Mewtarthio]

I agree. Theoretical discussions; Rule 0 is essentially meaningless.

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

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

[ZebulonCrispi]

So, uh.

What's Rule 0?

[Dhavaer]

So, uh.

What's Rule 0?

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

[F.L.]

For instance, by rule 0, in a campaign I dm, breaking a ladder could result in 2 angry large constictor snakes and a centaur.

[MobiusKlein]

The first rule of Rule 0 is don't talk about Rule 0!

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

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

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

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

[StickMan]

When debating something on this forum should rule 0 ever be bought up?

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

[TheOOB]

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

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

[Jack Mann]

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

[Matthew]

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

[Aquillion]

In this forum? It depends on the context. There are all sorts of discussions, after all.

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

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

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

[Raum]

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

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

[Aquillion]

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

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

Um, have you actually played D&D? Ever?

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

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

[Sightless]

The first rule of Rule 0 is don't talk about Rule 0!

I see what you did there!

[Matthew]

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

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

Well, that's one approach.

Aquillion versus Raum, FIGHT!

[Raum]

Um, have you actually played D&D? Ever?

Yep.

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

Rule 0 is the cause of many adversarial game relationships. Just read a random selection of threads here for a few months. :-/

The rules are only there to make it easier for the DM to run the world consistantly; they're not supposed to get in the way. That's the real point of Rule Zero.

I disagree. As written, rule 0 is about control. Any group who actually wants to game together can agree on a set of rules.

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

I agree with the comment I've highlighted...it's exactly what I was saying. As long as you have that agreement, rule 0 is superfluous.

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

Lack of rule knowledge is not the same as lack of consistency. To be perfectly clear, it's making arbitrary rule changes unilaterally that I find objectionable.

Aquillion versus Raum, FIGHT!

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

[Jack Mann]

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

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

[Matthew]

Lack of rule knowledge is not the same as lack of consistency. To be perfectly clear, it's making arbitrary rule changes unilaterally that I find objectionable.

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

[Jothki]

Rule 0 should be brought up when discussing the advantages/flaws of 2nd Edition, and completely ignored when dicussing the advantages/flaws of 3rd Edition.

[Vva70]

Lack of rule knowledge is not the same as lack of consistency. To be perfectly clear, it's making arbitrary rule changes unilaterally that I find objectionable.

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

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

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

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

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

[Raum]

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

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

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

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

If the second method is desired, why not make it the rule? Say Rule 0 becomes "The DM judges all rule issues unless overruled by a majority of the players." But even then I wonder if it's really necessary to put said rule in print. After all, most allow use of loans or collateral in Monopoly even though it's not in the rules.

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

I agree, that's the intent. But if it really takes that muck longer to reach a consensus...well either the rules are unnecessarily obtuse or the players are intentionally adversarial.

[Desaril]

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

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

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

[Karsh]

For my opinion, see my sig.

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

[Mewtarthio]

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

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

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

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