The emphasis on Rule Zero

[Glade Riven]

One thing that has come to the forefront this past weekend is the return of Rule Zero. In fact, it seems that 5e will handle rule zero completely opposite of how 4e handled it. 3e had rule zero in the DMG. 4e (at least to start with) seemed to push rule zero under a rug as part of their DM streamlining. There is already talk from those transcripts that the DMG rules for 5e will be specifically phrased as guidelines and suggestions.

Me? I like it. Then again, I already abuse Rule Zero to maintain fun factor, time management, and pacing. Good thing I'm not a rules lawyer - they may have problems with 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Cool thing:

beeing a Rules lawyer and using rule zero works very well.

 

[Mark CMG]

One thing that has come to the forefront this past weekend is the return of Rule Zero. In fact, it seems that 5e will handle rule zero completely opposite of how 4e handled it. 3e had rule zero in the DMG. 4e (at least to start with) seemed to push rule zero under a rug as part of their DM streamlining. There is already talk from those transcripts that the DMG rules for 5e will be specifically phrased as guidelines and suggestions.

Me? I like it. Then again, I already abuse Rule Zero to maintain fun factor, time management, and pacing. Good thing I'm not a rules lawyer - they may have problems with 5e.

Looks like you got your wish (or do you think they've made it "paramount?").

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/316568-rule-zero.html

 

[Yora]

My dissatisfaction with D&D since after the very first years of 3rd Edition was an increasing appearance of D&D being presented more and more like a tabletop wargame and paying very few attention to the aspect of roleplay, exploration, and story. There is a place for tactical tabletop wargames, but I'd like that place not to be D&D. So I support this.

 

[Astrosicebear]

One aspect of 3E that many enjoyed was the consistency of it. A monster could not just do something, it had to be in the same rulesets as the players. Else it was DM Fudge.

In 4e the monsters, through powers and to a degree players too, were given alot of leeway to make interesting encounters.

Players in 3E would say, well hows that guy doing that? Ask a bunch of questions I'd better have good answers for,or I would be found to be cheesing it. 4e players were very used to monsters just doing things,and might never question.

Rule zero generally only works well if it is applied fairly and evenly.

 

[kitsune9]

I like Rule Zero myself so long as I don't get those DMs who think that Rule Zero should be applied on whims and happenstance.

 

[the Jester]

My dissatisfaction with D&D since after the very first years of 3rd Edition was an increasing appearance of D&D being presented more and more like a tabletop wargame and paying very few attention to the aspect of roleplay, exploration, and story. There is a place for tactical tabletop wargames, but I'd like that place not to be D&D.

Or to be a specific D&D branded board game, which is (I suspect) the approach they're taking now. Conquest of Nerath et al seem to be doing well, and I'm pretty excited by the prospect of moar bettar cross-genre D&D stuff (I've heard really good stuff about the boardgames, for instance, and a D&D Minis skirmish game in its own right is a pretty cool idea, too. (I'm afraid I don't know the current status of any minis game, since I don't really have a FLGS where I am.)

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'm really neutral on the idea of having a hard-coded rule zero, myself. As far as I'm concerned, the ability of the DM and players to change the game according to the needs of their game is just an assumed part of any tabletop game (outside of things like tournament situations). Even chess has an implied "rule zero". I don't see the value, or even the point, of trying to emphasize that to any extent or deliberately creating vague rules in order to encourage its use.

 

[Scribble]

I don't agree with a hard coded rule zero. To me that implies these are the rules (and the only rules) unless the DM deems otherwise.

I think they should instead focus more on making it fully understood that these are "the suggested rules." or something similar.

Something that implies the rules within are not the only thing you can do, nor are they the "best" way to handle it, just a way that's worked for some.

1e I think did that pretty well IMO. The rulebook kind of read along the lines of, yeah this worked for me, but feel free to do whatever the frack you want.

Heck I'd even be in favor of not really calling them "rules."

 

[Ainamacar]

I'm really neutral on the idea of having a hard-coded rule zero, myself. As far as I'm concerned, the ability of the DM and players to change the game according to the needs of their game is just an assumed part of any tabletop game (outside of things like tournament situations). Even chess has an implied "rule zero". I don't see the value, or even the point, of trying to emphasize that to any extent or deliberately creating vague rules in order to encourage its use.

I see an explicit rule 0 as being the acknowledgment that all other rules are, at a deep level, imperfect but useful abstractions -- abstractions we hope are useful enough in the majority of cases to give a ballpark picture of the consistency of interaction and resolution. The reason to explicitly state it isn't so people realize the system is an imperfect abstraction (that much is obvious), but to give license or reminders to DMs who lack the awareness or confidence to actually exercise it. It serves a psychological purpose, albeit one that becomes less necessary with experience. (Imagine a psych experiment that tests how long a person in a closed room waiting for someone to arrive will just sit there before trying to leave. Every single person knows they could just walk out the door, and they'll definitely feel that "the rule" that they should wait is somehow outside what was surely intended. But if you don't prime them with the notion that they can leave, on average they'll wait longer.)

Explicit mention is also a way for the designers to flag just how big a ballpark a given rule is intended to fit, or to flag rules where some modification will be the norm rather than the exception. In both cases this can reduce the burden on a DM that is trying to decide if some rule is actually adequate under the circumstances. For example, perhaps the falling rules are very light and primarily intended to address medium size creatures falling in earth-like atmosphere. Rather than write more rules that will be used infrequently, it could mention that the DM can adjust the damage for creatures with very large or very small cross-sections. Sure the DM may have done so eventually, but if that one little statement made it a little easier and faster then it served the game well.