Rule Zero?

[enrious]

Very strongly, but it should also make a point that there are some groups that don't like to play with Rule 0 - and as long as they all agree up front, it's not wrong.

 

[Harlander]

there are some groups that don't like to play with Rule 0

Isn't playing without rule 0 the same as playing with it?

RULE 0: "Feel free to ignore any rule if you and your players feel that will improve your game."
GROUP: "OK, we choose to use all the rules."

 

[enrious]

Isn't playing without rule 0 the same as playing with it?

RULE 0: "Feel free to ignore any rule if you and your players feel that will improve your game."
GROUP: "OK, we choose to use all the rules."

You may get a kick out of this - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5741936-post101.html

 

[LostSoul]

I think the rules should be written well enough that rule 0 is not needed. That may be a pipe dream, but eh.

To be clear, I think that rule 0 means that the DM can change or ignore the rules on the fly during play. This wouldn't be house ruling, which I take to mean changing the rules before play begins.

 

[Pilgrim]

Paramount.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I voted that it should be strongly supported, but I really wish there were an option for moderately supporting it.

What I mean by that is strongly support rule 0, but also toss in a rule 0.5 (or just advice) that a DM should be open to input from and listen to the players.

Yes, rule 0 is important. However, taken too far, it can also result in some of the most tyrannically stupid, group breaking moments that you'll ever encounter in D&D, and that should certainly be acknowledged as well.

 

[Hassassin]

Yes, rule 0 is important. However, taken too far, it can also result in some of the most tyrannically stupid, group breaking moments that you'll ever encounter in D&D, and that should certainly be acknowledged as well.

You don't need rule 0 for that to be possible.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You can't make the game idiot-proof. You can, however, put a big box on page 1 that says: "The game is not the boss, you are." Thus, you have something to cite to the rules lawyers, malcontents, and naysayers to the effect that if there's something wrong in your game, it's the DM's responsibility to fix it.

 

[Halivar]

If it's not in the rules, I'll write it in.

It is incumbent on the DM to adjudicate all disputes, to set the tone and direction of the game, listen to constructive criticism, and if he does all these things well, he won't get replaced by the group.

The rules need to give the DM all the support he needs in making this happen.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You don't need rule 0 for that to be possible.

No, you don't, but rule 0 can certainly encourage that kind of attitude.

Again, I'm not saying they should excise rule 0. I'm saying they should add a bit of advice under rule 0 to the effect that "This isn't license for you to be a tyrant. Memento mori."