Rule Zero?

[kitsune9]

The DM is g o d. Players should venerate the DM with an opening, "Hail Great and Wrathful DM. May I appease you by stating that my character does X? Let thy mercy and dice find me in favor." Players who fail to show the proper deference to the DM immediately suffer -20 to all attack rolls, damage, skill checks, and saves until they learn.


Actually, kidding aside, I'm a middle-of-the-road DM. I let my players challenge me if it comes down to a decision or rule that kills their character in which the call is bad; however, if I make a bad call on +2 modifier on an attack or something, we move on. I also like to play the rules as written and if I make any house rules, the players know up front what they are. No surprises from me.

 

[William Ronald]

The goal of any RPG is fun, and I think that Rule Zero can support fun and allow DMs to exercise good judgment. Players should be given a chance to succeed of fail -- indeed, I think that some of my favorite moments of gaming have come when I have seen players do the unexpected --- or utterly surprise a DM.

 

[beverson]

There absolutely MUST be a Rule 0. I loathe the DM philosophy that "if it's in the book, I must allow it in my game".

 

[steenan]

There are two approaches to designing a game:

1. Make the rules simulation-like. In perfect case, it makes the game more intuitive to play and easier to immerse in. But either the rules are very detailed, complicated and hard to remember, or they are simplified and do not take many situations into account. Rule 0 is necessary to let the GM ignore parts of the complicated rules or add to the simplified rules to keep the game flowing and make the results consistent with the gameworld.
In this approach, playing well is easier and GMing well is harder (both because of additional work with adjudicating and the temptation of railroading).

2. You make the rules abstract and metagame. Results of mechanical resolution never contradict the fiction, because they don't dictate detailed events, leaving a lot of space for interpretation. You don't need rule 0 for the game to work.
This approach makes immersion harder to achieve, but enormously simplifies GM work and prevents many conflicts in less-experienced groups.

Important note: The way I see it, it's not "rule 0" to change something with the whole group's consensus. If everybody wants to modify the rules, they can do it anyway, no matter what the game book says. "Rule 0" allows the GM to ignore or override mechanics to achieve some (more or less specified) goals.

 

[Grabuto138]

1e was so impenetrable that DM fiat was necessary just to play. It almost seemed that each group played a completely different game. This resulted in a lot of petty dictator DMs who acted capriciously and arbitrarily. More than in any other version, the quality of the game depended on the quality of the DM.

The opposite was 3.xe. The assumption was that everything worked within the ruleset and everyone should play by the same rules. If a DM wanted a massive force field to block off a cave, the party would speculate “how would this NPC get access so many Wall of Force and Permanency spells.” And the “rules” for item creation were maybe the greatest mistake in the history of D&D, aside from THAC0, especially considering the Artificer. The fact that they were in the DMG and optional became beside the point.

What I liked most about 4e was how it detached the player from the DM. Characters followed a set a rules. Monsters, traps, artifacts etc. did what they did (a very 1e mindset).

We need a good ruleset were the DM can adjudicate on the margins and is free to modify scenarios (the example of the acid attack weakening the floor) but where no smarter-than-you Fascist DM defecates on “Come and Get It” because that power alone offends his sensibilities.

 

[Li Shenron]

For me Rule0 is paramount.

But certainly it should not be an excuse to lift designers from doing a good job so that Rule0 is not needed often.

 

[Greg K]

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.

I would have opened up the DMG and showed him the numerous places where it clearly states that the DM determines the following: how the game is played at the table, which rules are used, how strictly they are adhered to, and that they can make changes.