D&D 4E Will Rule Zero be in 4E?

[pemerton]

The foremost job of the DM is to instigate and direct the adventure and to adjudicate the rules.

I tend to prefer the players to direct the adventure, rather than the GM. But I agree that this can be the GM's role in some playstyles.

Rules adjudication tends to be handled by the GM in most roleplaying, I think, but this is independent of Rule Zero, which is not about rules adjudication but rules variation or rules suspension.

A DM who tends toward abuse of authority will do so even if he is expressly forbidden to do so.

But some rulesets can encourage it more than others (as Skeptic notes in relation to Burning Wheel).

Sure. But that sort of GM authority is integral to certain modes of play.

<snip>

there are benefits to the 'strong GM' style of play, so long as you trust the GM.

I agree that there can be good "strong GM" play under some conditions - although I disagree with those (obviously you are not one of them) who think that this is the only style of play, or what proper roleplaying consists in.

But I don't think that this sort of play depends upon Rule Zero. In my experience, RQ, Pendragon and Call of Cthulhu can all deliver this sort of play, but they do so through very robust action resolution mechanics, not through GM rule suspension or on-the-fly rules variation.

 

[drjones]

Yes.

But it will also include rule no. 3526 which reads "In event of DM-Player disagreement arm wrestling will be performed to determine the victor. The victors word will be law until unseated from his arm wrestling throne. And yes, you can go OVER THE TOP!"

 

[Alcamtar]

Wasn't Rule Zero in OD&D "Be Fair"?

No, this was rule zero in OD&D:

"As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. [...] New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. [...] If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play." (Men & Magic, Introduction)

"...we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" (Men & Magic, Afterword)

"D&D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules." (Eldritch Wizardry, Introduction)

"As we've said time and time again, the 'rules' were never meant to be more than guidelines; not even true 'rules.'" (Gods Demigods & Heroes, Introduction)

 

[hossrex]

Do we need a Rule 0 in order to have a Rule 0?

LOL!

I couldn't put my finger on why I thought this thread was silly, and this quote personifies it perfectly.

In my experience, a DM doesn't need the systems permission to make sure the game is fun for everyone. If you're a DM, and you stick to the letter of the rulebook while your party had dragged their feet and suffered through a pathetic campaign/adventure/encounter then you're probably not as good of a DM that you think you are.

I'd rather my DM fudge a little then allow the party to stumble onto the end of campaign baddie ten levels early and just ruin the campaign. Some of the comments here suggest there are Dungeon Masters who would just let that happen and say its part of playing the game.

Thats Bullhockey.

 

[hong]

For someone who's never played an RPG before, it's far from self-evident. Everyone learns Rule Zero somehow.

I think this is a key thing. If WotC is serious about attracting players who haven't played RPGs before, then communicating the idea that the rules don't cover everything and the DM can improvise/make stuff up is important. This is not something that is self-evident in most other games.

 

[Immolate]

I thought rule zero was "don't talk about fight club". Color me confused.

 

[marune]

I'd rather my DM fudge a little then allow the party to stumble onto the end of campaign baddie ten levels early and just ruin the campaign. Some of the comments here suggest there are Dungeon Masters who would just let that happen and say its part of playing the game.

Again, and again the problem is that the goal of different group playing D&D is different.

Some wants to follow a (hopefully) good story written by the DM, some wants to overcome (or face defeat) sound challenges, some wants a sandbox and some wants to participate in the creation of an original story.

Some of these playstyle require DM "fudging" and some require the DM not to "fudge".

The big problem with D&D is that it never said for which of these different playstyle it was made.

However, 4E is more than ever going for the "overcome (or face defeat) sound challenges" one, so I hope that "no DM fudging" will be the default in the DMG.

Sadly, the early notes of Bill S. in R&C and recents comments of a designer make me believe that we will see again a "DM as a storyteller", therefore the usual "fudge the results" to make them fit the written plot/module.

 

[hossrex]

Again, and again the problem is that the goal of different group playing D&D is different.

Congratulations on dismissing my post without actually bothering to dispute any of my statements. Tis' what one expects out of an internet discussion.

I stand by what I said. If you're a DM, and you think its a better idea for the DM to allow the party to accidentally stumble upon the end of campaign baddie ten levels prior to when it was supposed to happen, then to fudge things to keep the campaign alive, and fun... you're a bad Dungeon Master.

Weird things happen in a pen and paper RPG. A DM can *NOT* predict everything the players will do, and these situations will arise. Its a noble thing to say "let the dice fall where they may", but in practice this can ruin a campaign and upset everyone.

So... I'll bow to your point.

If you're gaming group is composed of players who don't mind if they're campaign isn't any good, then "rule zero" (a phrase I'd never heard before today) isn't necessary.

No one is saying a DM need to this every encounter, every adventure, or even every campaign. A good DM may never do this. A good DM may know his players well enough to predict any possibility.

But a good DM knows when he's backed into a corner, and he has the option between "ruining a campaign" or "saving a campaign".

A good DM doesn't allow a campaign to fall apart. A good DM doesn't even let his players know there has been a hand wave. A good DM lets his players think everything is going as planned.

I'm not saying "every DM does this" or "no DM does that"... but I am saying "a person is a bad DM if they willingly let a campaign fall apart, when he could have fudged/changed/handwaved away something without the players knowledge".

Nerfing sucks. Pulling back an enemy and not using his abilities to their fullest extent sucks. The players know when this happens. "Why didn't the dragon breathe after the first time?" "Why didn't the giant throw any rocks?" "How come the lich didn't use any high level spells?"

This isn't what anyone is talking about.

We're not talking about dealing with problems an average DM should have been able to predict ("uh oh... I didn't realize my party of 5th level adventurers would have a problem with the level 12 Evil Cleric. Sorry."). We're talking about that two times per year where everything goes wrong, no one does what any rational person could have predicted, and things need to be changed for the benefit of everyone.

I shouldn't have to spell this out so specifically. It really is common sense.

 

[marune]

If as a DM, you've ever let a campaign be ruined because the party inadvertently stumbled upon the end of campaign baddie 10 levels too early, you don't deserve to be a DM.

Rule Zero = unnecessary; as rule zero = common sense.

If I play poker with you and I discover that you cheated to let me win because it would be more fun, I would punch you.

In a similar way, players can feel cheated by a DM "fudging the dice".

Other games avoid this issue completely, because the PCs won't die if the players/DM don't want them to.

Don't assume that everyone is playing D&D the way you do.

 

[Mistwell]

Where are you getting that Rule Zero is "The DM may change the rules at his whim"?

Nobody used the word whim. But, we did say the DM can change the rules. And its in the quote you quoted:

Rule Zero (according to 3e) is
"0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign
standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to
know what character types the other players are playing so that you
can create a character that fits in well with the group."

So it's just about making a character that fits with the DMs house rules and the other players.

No, it's not. No fair reading of that paragraph would result in one only seeing the last sentence (which starts with "You might also..." which implies this is not the only or even primary purpose of the paragraph). Your DM may have house rules that vary from the standard rules. That is not about characters. That is not about fitting. That is a reference to the fact that the DM may change the rules.