Rule Zero?

[UngainlyTitan]

Rule 0 is in operation at my table irrespective of what the RAW says.
I make this clearto new players at the start.

If they don't like then they can run a game or take a hike.

 

[SensoryThought]

I think historically D&D has moved from less rules where the DM is encouraged to use discretion to more rules where every contingency is described. Hence the lessening of rule zero. My players like to do crazy things like slide under a giant and pop up and stab him in the back. You can do this within the 4e rules- acrobatics check then attack with flanking bonus, but the DC of the skill check is very much a rule zero situation still. You can't and shouldn't try to set DCs for everything.

I generally agree with comments that 5e material should stress the collaborative rather than adversarial relationship between players and DM.

 

[Jack7]

To me it should be preeminent and fundamental.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Dungeonsdelvers quote from EGG is what I hold to. "rule 0" from 3E dealt just with emphasis that character creation rules/procedures may differ from the PH. People have come to read a lot more into it than that using any definition that they like. The subject is important and not to be dismissed with just a 1-line "definition". EGG would certainly have gone into more detail if it had been needed at the time. It wasn't. It most certainly is now since we've had a couple editions that have left the subject FAR too loosely dealt with.

Let people set this bar wherever they like - but let it be unequivocal that if the DM so chooses not to give up HIS rights/responsibilities the players should shut up.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.953993,-117.390307

 

[was]

paramount

 

[MichaelSomething]

Rule Zero needs to be properly emphasized though. One of the major points of HP discussions is that people assume that HP=wounds. It would be pointed out that every edition had a small section stating how HP wasn't wounds. Then they would be told that every other part of the book would reinforce HP=wounds. If you're gonna do rule 0, do it right!

 

[howandwhy99]

There should be NO Rule Zero

No one gets to break the rules at the table as part of the rules. That's pretty important. It's like saying Time Out or a safety word should be ignored whenever desired. Of course you can ignore it, we can break any game's rules. We shouldn't have a rule that says "don't follow the rules whenever you don't want to." Change 'em outside of play? Sure. Break them during play? No.

 

[Ahnehnois]

There should be NO Rule Zero

No one gets to break the rules at the table as part of the rules. That's pretty important. It's like saying Time Out or a safety word should be ignored whenever desired. Of course you can ignore it, we can break any game's rules. We shouldn't have a rule that says "don't follow the rules whenever you don't want to." Change 'em outside of play? Sure. Break them during play? No.

To quote Pirates of the Carribean, "they're more guidelines than actual rules."

This I don't get. Breaking the rules *is* the safety word. When the rules tell you a character dies and the DM fudges it, or when the rules tell you you can drop a bag of rats and slaughter anyone and the DM says no. D&D is completely noncompetitive; there's really no reason to follow any of the rules unless you want to. The only immutable rule I see is that the DM is the final arbiter of everything (i.e. Rule Zero).

 

[hanez]

To quote Pirates of the Carribean, "they're more guidelines than actual rules."

This I don't get. Breaking the rules *is* the safety word. When the rules tell you a character dies and the DM fudges it, or when the rules tell you you can drop a bag of rats and slaughter anyone and the DM says no. D&D is completely noncompetitive; there's really no reason to follow any of the rules unless you want to. The only immutable rule I see is that the DM is the final arbiter of everything (i.e. Rule Zero).

To clarify, when I voted I meant changing the rules, in game or whenever you want is paramount, I change em on the fly, I bump an AC cause I feel like, it, I tell you you hit when you didn't cause I'm bored of the combat. My purpose as a DM is to make the game fun and believeable, and the rules wont hold me back when they are in the way.


My players know when they come to the campaign they can wake up in chains, in prison without having roleplayed how they got there, they can get something stolen just by walking down an alley, the king can order them beheaded because I thought it would make for a cool story arc.

Its kind of like a star trek episode, notice how the science works differently every week? One week the transporters arent working because of a "subspace anomaly", next week the phasers won't work on some creature, its just the writers bending the rules to make the show good.

Sure, the players are writers too, it can't all be the DMs show, and if the DM is a bad writer then youll get some bad episodes. But if the DM whipes his hands of responsibility and just lets the rules control the game, you might as well be playing WOW because it won't have that personal, epic feel to it.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Rule 0 is absolutely essential. It's the rule that allows the DM's common sense to overrule anything in the book. It's the rule that shuts down the rules lawyers. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules and his authority is absolute. It's the cornerstone of the game.

It's the DMs responsibility to be fair and to use this power wisely. A DM who acts like a tyrant and abuses Rule 0 won't have players for very long.