RAW includes Rule 0?

[Andor]

From another thread I got this:

A house rule is RAW because of Rule 0? Try and make that fly in the Rules Forum. I triple-dog-dare ya.

To provide context this was in the course of a discussion about altering creatures to suit the plot.

Is the GM forbidden by the RAW from assigning a creature a different HP total than it's HD would normally suggest?

Is the GM forbidden by the RAW from altering a creatures attacks and saves by assigning bonuses and penalties whether ha calls them Morale, or Insight, or Because-I-said-so?

 

[Folly]

The DM is not forbidden from any of these, but the DM should also keep in mind changes these values changes the CR of the creature. This can be in either way.

Personally I do not believe a DM should EVER do this on the fly. It either cheapens the experience because the players feel like the DM softballed the encounter, or it makes the players feel their characters builds are pointless. It is better to apologize for (murdering them all) / (them cake waking it) then it is to undermine the experience.

 

[Maleketh]

I'd say Rule 0 is impled in the RAW. Check the DMG, page 18, under "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions."

Do you cheat? The answer: the DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes.

Page 14 also features an entire section entitled "Changing the Rules."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, if I ask:
"By RAW, can I Power Attack for 20 points at level 1?", the answer is: "Yes, you can.", since Rule Zero is part of RAW?
And the answer "No, you can't" is also right, because maybe someone did not use Rule Zero?

 

[blargney the second]

Paging Doctor Schrödinger...

 

[Nifft]

To provide context this was in the course of a discussion about altering creatures to suit the plot.

Is the GM forbidden by the RAW from assigning a creature a different HP total than it's HD would normally suggest?

Is the GM forbidden by the RAW from altering a creatures attacks and saves by assigning bonuses and penalties whether ha calls them Morale, or Insight, or Because-I-said-so?

The DM is forbidden nothing in particular.

But the DM should be aware when he is breaking the rules, both RAW and RAI, and even RAGAIYSG*.

Claiming Rule 0 makes anything RAW is sophistry.

Cheers, -- N


*) RAW = Rules As Written, RAI = Rules As Intended, and RAGIIYSG = Rules As Generally Agreed In Your Specific Group.

 

[Pbartender]

Personally I do not believe a DM should EVER do this on the fly. It either cheapens the experience because the players feel like the DM softballed the encounter, or it makes the players feel their characters builds are pointless. It is better to apologize for (murdering them all) / (them cake waking it) then it is to undermine the experience.

Why not?

Remember, nothing is illegal until you get caught... Don't. Get. Caught.

If the DM "cheats" by adjusting monster stats of the fly, but the players never notice because he doesn't tell them, how does that cheapen the experience?... Especially if, in the end, it provides a more interesting and fun, but still beatable, challenge for the player-characters?

 

[Artoomis]

The point of understanding the rules as written (RAW) is:

1. As a player, know the rules so you can play with well and do not delay the game session by taking along time looking up rules.

2. For a DM, it's similar to (1), plus the fact that one should understand RAW before changing the rules - so that one can better preserve reasonable balance when changing the rules.

 

[Folly]

Why not?

Remember, nothing is illegal until you get caught... Don't. Get. Caught.

If the DM "cheats" by adjusting monster stats of the fly, but the players never notice because he doesn't tell them, how does that cheapen the experience?... Especially if, in the end, it provides a more interesting and fun, but still beatable, challenge for the player-characters?

My reasoning steams from Artoomis' second point. Further, there is a point in your statement that I have an issue with. Your statement implies one of two situations: the dm is familar enough and fast enough with the rules that the players do not notice, or the players are so unobservant as to not notice changes in the combat. Both are really the same situation since it becomes relative between the capabilities of the dm and the capabilities of the players. Since there are 4 to 6 players (typically), the likelyhood of the DMs capabilities outstripping the players is unlikely.

Meanwhile, in my suggested course of action. A group should be mature enough to know that people make mistakes sometimes, and move on after an apology is made. I have played with alot of DMs and I have DM'd for alot of players, and in both situations I prefer that this be the way those situations be resolved. (Those situations being were an encounter the party is suppose to face is either too easy when it wasn't suppose to be or too hard when it wasn't suppose to be.)

As a personal note, I have found that encounters that use the rules for building encounters and/or monster are more satisfying.

 

[Folly]

I'd say Rule 0 is impled in the RAW. Check the DMG, page 18, under "DM Cheating and Player Perceptions."

"Do you cheat? The answer: the DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes."

Page 14 also features an entire section entitled "Changing the Rules."

This is an apt analogy, since just as when an umpire makes a call, the umpire has not cheated, but the players sure can feel cheated.