• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

RAW includes Rule 0?

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

...

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

Expansion mine. When you read the question this way, removing the acronym, I think these two questions are not the same thing.

The DM is allowed to change the rules of the game whenever he wants. It's written in the DMG. So changing HP or HD or anything else is allowed by the Rules As Written. However, once this is done, the DM is now making up his own rules. He is not following the rules that anyone else would find written in the books. He is not following the Rules As Written. The DM is now literally following the Rules As Written while breaking the Rules As Written.

Simply put: By the RAW, the DM is not required to follow the RAW. That does not make his houserules RAW.

Disclaimer: Buy "written", I really mean "Published in textual format by Wizards of the Coast in the three Dungeons and Dragons Core rulebooks (and errata) as Open Game Content, with additional rules and books to be added to the list of allowed sources only by explicit inclusion". If you want to include the rule that you just wrote down on a piece of a napkin to count as RAW because it is now "written", you must explicitly state that the napkin is a legal splatbook in the game you play.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Deset Gled said:
Expansion mine. When you read the question this way, removing the acronym, I think these two questions are not the same thing.

True, but then the point he was refuteing was not exactly the point I had been trying to make so my post was probably a bit disjointed. :D
 


Deset Gled said:
Expansion mine. When you read the question this way, removing the acronym, I think these two questions are not the same thing.

The DM is allowed to change the rules of the game whenever he wants. It's written in the DMG. So changing HP or HD or anything else is allowed by the Rules As Written. However, once this is done, the DM is now making up his own rules. He is not following the rules that anyone else would find written in the books. He is not following the Rules As Written. The DM is now literally following the Rules As Written while breaking the Rules As Written.

Simply put: By the RAW, the DM is not required to follow the RAW. That does not make his houserules RAW.

Disclaimer: Buy "written", I really mean "Published in textual format by Wizards of the Coast in the three Dungeons and Dragons Core rulebooks (and errata) as Open Game Content, with additional rules and books to be added to the list of allowed sources only by explicit inclusion". If you want to include the rule that you just wrote down on a piece of a napkin to count as RAW because it is now "written", you must explicitly state that the napkin is a legal splatbook in the game you play.
Check it out, Desert Glad, you're famous!

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4236329&postcount=596
 

The funny thing is that most people don't know what Rule 0 really is. If you think it's just the DM making up a new rule, you're wrong. Unfortunately, 3.5 doesn't have Rule 0. 3.0 did.
 

Folly said:
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.

Certainly, the DM has to know the rules well enough to pull it it off. Of course, DMing itself requires a certain minimum competence within the rules to begin with.

That aside, much of the success of DM "cheating", has less to do with rules knowledge, but with being able to decide which stat to change and when to change it by paying attention to what the players are paying attention to, having the self-control to not tell the players that you did it, and having enough composure to keep your poker face and not give it away.

For example... I've never run into a player who's bothered to keep track of all the hit point damage done to a monster by an entire party. Players generally only pay attention to the general amount of damage their character is dealing, and sometimes to the general amount of damage another character is dealing. They might know, "Wow, we've done more than 100 hit points damage, and it's still standing," but they generally won't no that they've done 114 total points of damage specifically. When the players are having a tough time, and it gets noticed, I may not even exactly subract hit points, but say to myself, "the monster goes down after three more hits, or the next critical hit, whichever comes first," and the players cheer and breath a sigh of relief at narrowly defeating a challenging foe... Too busy with healing and looting and victory celebrations to notice that the monster had 1/3 less hitpoints than it should have.

The point is, there are easy ways to cheat, and there tough ways to cheat...

Adding or subtracting hit points is easy... It rarely gets noticed, and is easy to explain away if it does.

Simply not using abilities is easy... Especially if it's a "hidden" ability like DR, or an ability the monster hasn't used in the battle yet. Other prominent and more often used abilities, like a giant squid not using Improved Grab might get noticed, however.

Changing AC is a tough one, if you aren't paying attention to what the players are doing... Players always pay attention to which attack rolls hit or miss. If a roll of 23 hits on one round, but misses on the next -- or vice versa -- it's almost certain to get noticed, and the only excuse you can fall back on is, "Sorry, I read it wrong."

All that said, I will agree with you on one thing... While nothing is illegal unless you get caught, the easiest way to not get caught is to not do it.
 

Infiniti2000 said:
The funny thing is that most people don't know what Rule 0 really is. If you think it's just the DM making up a new rule, you're wrong. Unfortunately, 3.5 doesn't have Rule 0. 3.0 did.

It's on page 6 of the DMG, in the first paragraph under the heading 'Adjudicating'. It doesn't use the phrase 'rule 0'. It says:

"You have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."
 

Ranes said:
It doesn't use the phrase 'rule 0'.
Exactly. Now flip to your 3.0 DMG where it discusses Rule 0 and find it what it really means. The thing it adds is that it requires concurrence with the players. It's not "what the DM says goes", it's "what the group says goes."

It's just a minor little conceptual difference that I think is lost a lot. I'm surprised it didn't make it into 3.5 quite honestly. I hope there's a similar statement in 4e.
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top