NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5985705" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Did you? I didn't even notice. No worries about it, though. I was mostly just commenting on it to comment on it; it's not a bad thing that I was buried in Lanefan's quotes (my quote is easy enough to find).If you mean that my players expect me to use Rule 0 from time to time in ways that none of us know or predicted, then yes, they do. If that's kind of like an "unpublished house rule", then cool, we're on the same page. (I usually refer to this sort of understanding as part of the social contract of my table.)Well, it's more of a "the rules don't give an explicit ruling on this" and then me adjudicating as best as I can, based on the common understanding of my group. I might rule at some point that the collapsing cavern might be avoided entirely if they beat the Reflex DC by enough, or that the giant slab following from above doesn't entitle them to a save at all. These aren't covered extensively in the rules (though they are covered), and my players accept the slight adjustments on the fly.I think that this can be the case, but a GM can use a perfectly legal character without breaking any game rules; the same can be very true of railroad plots. He can just have a level 18 Cleric follow the party around, ordering them around, and he'd be using a GMPC and probably engaging in a railroad plot (again, with no use of Rule 0).I was just saying that if one tends to abuse Rule 0, I expect them to be less than stellar in other ways, as well.This is what I was trying to explain to Hussar (which I think he understood). While I like clear rules (to empower the player), the explicit use of Rule 0 can enhance the game for my group, even if my players don't expect it beforehand. Well, they expect me to use it, but none of us knows when or where it'll come up.This is to help maintain a sense of immersion within the world, most often. It's to keep the mechanics from "breaking the game" by letting me break the rules; this is determined by "common sense" at my table (which will admittedly vary from table to table).Well, it might be harder for my group, since we run the RPG I created, and the rules match up extremely closely with want we want, by RAW, most of the time. It's the corner cases that I like to mess around with or break. For example, a while back I gave two successes in a skill challenge from somebody who rolled exceptionally well on their check at an important opening moment. This isn't covered in the mechanical rules (though it's talked about in the Running a Game chapter), but I'm also okay swapping skills in skill challenges with attribute checks or attack rolls, too (and I recently had an attack roll as part of a skill challenge).Hmm... I feel like I haven't answered you. Let me know if I can be more specific.This is probably true for many groups. Considering the rather extensive mechanical changes that my game went through*, I don't think this is particularly daunting to my group, though.* Eventually fading from 3.5 D&D to my own RPG, which is point-buy, has its own unique magic system (51 pages) that combines skill checks and spell slots (or just uses skill checks), has a martial maneuver system that isn't based on any 3.5 book, has a skill system that is 54 pages (as compared to combat at 32 [which includes 5 pages on mass combat and 12 pages of martial maneuvers]) that is quite extensive with new skills/uses, etc. That's funny, because now I feel like we're not disagreeing... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Like I said, the rules bend usually for immersion purposes, but I bend them other times, too, as I think it "makes sense" for me to do (giving two successes on a skill challenge, using an attack roll instead of a skill, etc.). I might actually change something with Rule 0 about once every 10 or so hours of playing. Something like "I rolled 'infection' against you twice that combat; rather than two infections, I'm going to give you checks against 1, but raise the DC."Is it wholly necessary? Nope. And the game would basically be fine when played RAW. Am I ever going to play any system completely by the book? Maybe. My own RPG is about as close as I'm going to get, and even then, I'll use some GM discretion as it "makes sense" to me and my group, just to give us the play experience that we prefer.Basically, I like the rules for the sake of the players (it strongly empowers them when they make decisions); I like Rule 0 because it can help bend the rules in corner cases, letting me keep the players immersed. Can the rules base provide that much information? Maybe. It'd be in a longer book that what I want, though, that's for sure (I shoot for around 320 pages, and that includes a Running a Game section). As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification