The True Rule 0.

[Michael Morris]

The Player's Handbook has a blurb about the DM having the right to change the rules. However, there is one rule he cannot change. One rule that he cannot trump. The true "rule 0"

The rule of fun.

Simply put - this is a game. Games are meant to be fun. Whatever else occurs, if the players stop enjoying the game, then they have little or no reason left to play. Remember that if the players don't play there is no game.

I've been noting a trend in the house rules and main rules forum (where I lurk more often than post) towards realism. If that's what everyone at the table enjoys, fine. But rules that slow the game down or add complexity in place of action should be looked at with a wary eye.

Just something I felt like pointing out since it seems to be getting lost in a couple of threads.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

A very, very good point that seems to get lost in the quest to make things 'better', 'more realistic', 'simpler', etc.

No, there's nothing WRONG with any of that, but if someone isn't having fun because of it, then there's a problem.

 

[Talic]

Agreed. I am plenty willing to susped many of the technical realities in favor of keeping things simple and keeping the game moving. I understand that sometimes situations just aren't covered and they need to be dealt with, or it could be nice to include, but anything more complicated than the rules I'm not going to bother with.

Fun is the name of the game.

 

[Darkness]

Remember that if the players don't play there is no game.

Yeah. Also, this reminds me of the occasional thread by an unhappy DM whose players insist on things that are no fun to him. (Sometimes the DM is unreasonable, sometimes the players are, etc.) If he can work out a compromise or at least easily get a new group, fine. If not, sucks to be him. The same goes for players, of course. Compromise is often necessary, and not necessarily a bad thing, but unfortunately in some cases tastes differ so much that there's not much you can do besides finding another group or putting up with an unpleasant situation (for you or both sides, depending).

 

[Crothian]

while fun is imprtiant, many people like different things and have fun with different things. Trying to get the game very realist is fun for people as is trying to tweak out a character. So, while fiun is all good and everything, there is no reason to think fun isn't being had in the threads being refered to.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I've been noting a trend in the house rules and main rules forum (where I lurk more often than post) towards realism. If that's what everyone at the table enjoys, fine. But rules that slow the game down or add complexity in place of action should be looked at with a wary eye.

I whole-heartedly agree.

Personally, I don't like realism beyond a certain point. We always have to remember that we're talking about elves, dwarves, and people flinging about flash and fire with but a gesture and a word. When we have to start calculating how much this fireball expands now that he is limited in two dimensions, or how much air it uses up in a sealed room, it stops to be fun, since it suddenly takes four times as long. I like the explanation "it's magic". It's the Power Word, Kill for realism

 

[S'mon]

Simply put - this is a game. Games are meant to be fun. Whatever else occurs, if the players stop enjoying the game, then they have little or no reason left to play. Remember that if the players don't play there is no game.

If the GM won't GM there is no game either though, and a GM puts more into the game than any single player. Everyone at the table should be having fun; the GM should aim to cater to the desires of his players but not if it makes it unfun for himself. So IMO Rule 0 is fine as-is.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If the GM won't GM there is no game either though, and a GM puts more into the game than any single player. Everyone at the table should be having fun; the GM should aim to cater to the desires of his players but not if it makes it unfun for himself. So IMO Rule 0 is fine as-is.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Players and DM's need each other. And even though the DM puts more effort into the game doesn't mean that he can do as he pleases, the players be damned. Some DM's forget that.

 

[Cheiromancer]

If it is prior to rule 0, shouldn't it be called "rule -1"?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

If it is prior to rule 0, shouldn't it be called "rule -1"?

Maybe -0? But since it is the true Rule Zero, the other ones should be renamed.