Rule Zero?

[Jan van Leyden]

I voted "Rule Zero should be strongly supported".

My reasoning is that by only citing this rule, you empower the DM only formally. It would be better to include discussions on the application of Rule Zero, thus empowering the DM to actually feel applying this rule.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How strongly should the new edition stress Rule Zero (that the rules are guidelines that the GM should feel free to nix in any given situation)?

Saying Yes and Rule Zero are two of the most essential rules for any DM and player group.

So I think there should be a place in the core rulebooks - maybe where the DM's role is explained, where both is adressed.

"As the Dungeon Master, you have a unique role and responsbility. You guide the game. You describe the world to the players, and you decide how the world reacts to the actions they take.

But not only that. You also are the arbiter of the rules.
If a rule is unclear, or something is not covered by the rules itself, you may have to make a decision. It is okay - and often advisable - to ask for input by the players and consider the general interests of the players and the group, but the final decision is yours.
Sometimes, you or members in the group will even encounter rules that you don't like, and as Dungeon Master, you have the right to change the rules to better fit your and your group's preferences. "

"As a player, you can and often should offer input and advice to your Dungeon Master to help him run the best game he can. The Dungeon Master has the final say on the rules, and if he deems it better for the game, he can ignore or change rules. He is the final arbiter of any conflict."

 

[Tony Vargas]

'Rule Zero' is not a rule or a feature of the game, it's an acknowledgement of reality: GMs can change the rules of games. Designers can't stop them. They don't need a 'rule zero' or 'golden rule' ostentatiously granting them permission to do so.

 

[Mallus]

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

It's not a pipe dream, LS.

The rules simply need to state up front that a lot of time they're really just suggestions/rough guidelines.

In reading through/playing AD&D again, I was surprised to find how... not definitive it is in places, despite its plethora of charts and percentages. Surprise usually occurs like this, etc. It builds in --usually in the most verbose way possible-- the idea in-game situations need to be evaluated first and foremost by the DM, with the rules acting as aids to their adjudication.

 

[Number48]

Rule 0 needs to be there, but we have to be clear as to WHY it is there. Don't let the rules get in the way of the fun. It should be used generously to handwave away certain situations that just don't need to take game time, e.g. "They are simple goblins, you guys are 12th level. It takes you 2 hours but you track them down and recover the widget. No rolls needed." It needs to be more cautiously used if the results are farther-ranging, e.g. "There are no spells that allow magical movement."

Before you use rule 0, ask yourself if this is more likely to keep players at the table, or drive them away?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

When 3.5 scrapped rule zero, the game was inevitably doomed:

I had players both in 3.5 and 4e, who ruined games by arguing that the DM needs to play by the rules as written and may not change something to better fit the situation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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!

What does rule 0 have to do with what HP represent?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

'Rule Zero' is not a rule or a feature of the game, it's an acknowledgement of reality: GMs can change the rules of games. Designers can't stop them. They don't need a 'rule zero' or 'golden rule' ostentatiously granting them permission to do so.

No, but some players need it. There are gamers out there who freak out, when someone changes a rule (Me included... so I don´t do so lightly).

If the game tells you that you may change everything as you desire, it is a lot more easy to tell yourself or anyone, that, while this is the usual rule, there are special circumstances right now, that handling the situation differently is appropriate.

 

[LostSoul]

No, but some players need it. There are gamers out there who freak out, when someone changes a rule (Me included... so I don´t do so lightly).

If the game tells you that you may change everything as you desire, it is a lot more easy to tell yourself or anyone, that, while this is the usual rule, there are special circumstances right now, that handling the situation differently is appropriate.

You don't need rule 0 for that; you need rules that rely on DM adjudication.

"You get a +2 bonus for having the high ground" is an example. Who decides if you have the high ground? "The DM determines if you have the high ground."

A rule that describes that condition without DM adjudication (eg. "If your character is standing on a surface 5' higher than your target, you get a +2 bonus to attack rolls") is going to be messed up. In some situations where it shouldn't apply, it does (fighting a giant), and in situations where it should apply, it doesn't (fighting a prone dude).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think we need both, rule 0 and rules that rely on the DM.

Rule 0 said IIRC also, that you apply the DM´s best friend, when needed (+2/-2 modifier). So beeing on higher ground shoul be a rule, not included in the PHB, but as an example, where zo apply the best friend.

In the PHB, there only needs to be a statement:
the DM may give you a bonus to an attack roll is you are in an advantageous position (like beeing on higher ground against same size targets, or a penalty, if you are in a less favourable situation. (Beeing subjected to bright light, after hiding in the dark)