Rule Zero?

[MichaelSomething]

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

I mentioned HP representation as an example of a concept that is mentioned but not properly reinforced throughout the book...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

ah!^^

 

[SlyDoubt]

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.

I don't remember this at all. Where did Monte Cook say the DM shouldn't modify things or improv things, etc. when presented with unknown situations, or even situations where there are rules but no one is quite sure how to handle them?

He says quite the opposite. That understanding the foundation of the game is important for the DM because it allows them to make good judgement and alter the game in sound and logical ways that are fair to the players.

I was just checking to be sure. Monte actually says specifically

"The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work—providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign."

So, no, that wasn't from 3.X, at all. He even uses the term paramount for crying out loud. Crawl back into your cave.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't remember this at all. Where did Monte Cook say the DM shouldn't modify things or improv things, etc. when presented with unknown situations, or even situations where there are rules but no one is quite sure how to handle them?

He says quite the opposite. That understanding the foundation of the game is important for the DM because it allows them to make good judgement and alter the game in sound and logical ways that are fair to the players.

I was just checking to be sure. Monte actually says specifically

"The ability to use the mechanics as you wish is paramount to the way roleplaying games work—providing a framework for you and the players to create a campaign."

So, no, that wasn't from 3.X, at all. He even uses the term paramount for crying out loud. Crawl back into your cave.

I don´t have my books here... so i can´t do a quote battle with you. Wish I could though...

The important wording is "framework" to make judgement calls". This implies, that rules can´t cover all situations, anf that sometimes someone has to make a judgement about a rule applying in a given situation.

I never wanted to imply that you should suddenly make skill checks "roll under your ability score". I wanted to adress things like: "A sarcophagus opens and spills out a skeleton - You are pushed to the side when it opens..." Player: "but it has no power to push me..."
Instead of: "I try to resist the push" DM: "Ok, make a hard athletics check"

4e actually has rule 0 built in... on page 42... but somehow this idea never stuck in the mind of the players.

A different situation:

A corridor is ten feet wide (2 squares):
Player: "I try to block the whole corridor by standing in the middle" DM: "There is no middle... you need to chose which square you occupy"
A good application of rule zero would be:
DM: "Ok, you can´t efficiently totally block the corridor... but It is difficult to bypass you. They need to make a dexterity check to see if they can easily run by."

It is not about changing the rules, but allowing for creativity to adapt to a situation.
Hope you have the food ready when I come in...

 

[BryonD]

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

I am 100% certain that my ideal could never be reached by rules alone.

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.

The opposed votes seem to be expressing this, and to me that is surprising.

Ultimately rule 0 is exactly as you describe. BUT, there is a TON of context that changes the heart of Rule 0 into something radically different than those words alone suggest.

I use Rule 0. But only when the changing a rule on the fly achieves the purpose of making the rule work the way it SHOULD work rather than the misfunction that strict RAW would cause because a specific example of an infinite variety circumstances was not taken account in the writing of the rules. I use Rule 0 on a fairly common basis. I would say that I can't recall anyone ever going "WTF!!!" because I changed the rules out from under them. I'd say 90% of the time the response is along the lines of "yeah, of course, that is what should happen" and the rest of the time I've only need a brief conversation and agreeable play resumes very quickly.

 

[SlyDoubt]

post

How much more can they do before it's simply annoying? It's up to the DM and players to decide how they want to play. The book explains that rules can be changed as much as you would like but it gives guidelines for doing so. I don't know how explicit you want something to be.

What you meant to say probably was that 3.X encouraged players to learn the rules and have control over their characters (via rules) in ways that they hadn't previously. Which causes conflict where possibly before there wasn't much or any. Which boils down to an issue between humans, not the presence or lack of rule zero.

3.X reinforced rule zero. To say it scrapped it is just a lie.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Paramount

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't believe a DM should change the rules willy nilly.

The rules don't cover everything and there are times someone has to make a decision and that falls to the DM. Sure they should listen to what the players have to say but in the end the DM has final say.

I have played with DMs who are slaves to the rules and I find them to be so rigid that the dun aspect of the game suffers. You can never do anything creative because it is not codified by the rule set.

The other issues are players who don't want the responsibility of running a game but feel they should be able to dictate to the DM on how things should be. I played with a guy like this who would get upset if the DM changed how monsters worked. The DM did this because he got tired of all the meta game knowledge coming into the game. He went on and on that the DM was cheating.

We kept pointing out rule zero, finally after the player in question went to a site and was told yes rule zero is a rule and yes the DM can change things with monsters did he finally shut up.

 

[Tallifer]

The Dungeon Master does all the hard work. The players' should accede to his vision of the world. It is the simplest of social contracts between the people and Leviathan.

On the other hand, I absolutely want clear, elegant, balanced, sensible and logically organized rules like what I see in the Fourth Edition. As a dungeon master or a player I like a stable foundation upon which to build an adventure and a story.

The best use of Rule Zero is when the dungeon master should judge between the intersection of common sense, rules as written and different people's weltanschauung. There are times when our own experience or understanding of how things work are better ways to run things than the rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

How much more can they do before it's simply annoying? It's up to the DM and players to decide how they want to play. The book explains that rules can be changed as much as you would like but it gives guidelines for doing so. I don't know how explicit you want something to be.

What you meant to say probably was that 3.X encouraged players to learn the rules and have control over their characters (via rules) in ways that they hadn't previously. Which causes conflict where possibly before there wasn't much or any. Which boils down to an issue between humans, not the presence or lack of rule zero.

3.X reinforced rule zero. To say it scrapped it is just a lie.

1st: stop telling me what I want to say.

2nd: 3.0 and 3.5 were two different beasts in some regards. Although most rules where the same, 3.5 did change some things i considered as very important:

- Spells that can be used creatively and in different manners, where DM adjucation was needed, got some hard coded option.

- Things like cover, which was adjucated by the DM in 3.0 got explicit rules. (Rember the picture in the 3.0 book, where 9/10 cover was explained?

- I have heard, 3.5 didn´t mention rule 0 anymore. I have no prove, because I skipped the 3.5 DMG. The 3.0 DMG + SRD was good enough for me.

I wanted to say, that players enforcing some board game rules on the DM is very annoying. D&D is a game about creativity. You need a good framework, which 3.x is, but in the end, it is only a tool to adjucate situation in a balanced manner.

@ how explicit should it be?
The first sentence in all 3 rulebooks needs to be:

Rule 0
The DM is the judge for all situations. The rules given in this book are just guidelines and he may change them to better suit the game he wants to run. If you don´t like the way he is adjucating the situation, talk to him after the session and if you still disagree, open your own table.