The True Rule 0.

[Darkness]

IMO, it should be a part of the "official" rule zero.

 

[Kesh]

Rule i.

(Math humor, forgive me.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Heh!

In the words of Paranoia: Happiness is Mandatory.

The Auld Grump

 

[ThirdWizard]

I say we call it Rule ∞

 

[shilsen]

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.

Cannot change? Methinks you underestimate the power of the DM. From some of the horror stories I've heard and read on these boards, there are lots of DMs out there who take the rule of fun and twist it into a ghastly mockery of its original form

And yes, I'm with you completely. The main reason to play the game is to have fun doing so.

 

[Ranger REG]

But the question remains: Should D&D standard ruleset be designed for "realistic roleplaying" in the first place?

I'm just sick and tired of the [loud] whines that the RAW is not to their liking, only to be followed by yet another [loud] whines about having to work up houserules to fix "WotC's flaws."

 

[ThirdWizard]

But the question remains: Should D&D standard ruleset be designed for "realistic roleplaying" in the first place?

I think I would answer this is "If the designers want it to." Of course, then we would end up with something wholey unlike anything D&D has ever been.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I'm just sick and tired of the [loud] whines that the RAW is not to their liking, only to be followed by yet another [loud] whines about having to work up houserules to fix "WotC's flaws."

You and me both.

 

[boredgremlin]

I have noticed that no ruleset ever pleases everyone at the table. Players need to realize that if everyone takes a vote and a majority like a rule or change then they just have to deal with it. Because a in a group of 7 people if 5 like a change then it happens. Its about having 2 people annoyed or 5 people dissapointed. For instance in the game i DM now 2 of us like realism, 2 are willing to try anything once to see how it works, 1 just doesnt care (he focuses on the roleplaying and thinks rules get in the way most of the time), and 1 guy who starts having a s**t fit if any change to D&D RAW is proposed. Even ones that are part of a published campaign setting.

What do we do? If one of us finds a change or houserule we like we have someone vote on it. 2 people vote for it, 2 might if its realistic, 1 votes against it and the RP guy votes with whatever the majority thinks to make everyone shut up and play lol. So the guy who likes the RAW as is usually loses and pouts for a few minutes. Did I as DM up because this player is unhappy? I dont think so. Does the frustrated RAW devotee throw a tantrum and quit? No, he is good player and likes the people in the game and the stories we get involved in, so he deals with the rules he might not like and soldiers on.

Every DM should remember the old saying "you can never please everyone all the time."

You see a lot of posts saying this or that rule sucks and ruins my game. I say well tough. If most people like it then you need to deal with it. Some people are just too focused on rules. There are things about the RAW i hate, doesnt wreck my game. I might get a moment of irritation over it but it doest ruin my game. GURPS wierd traits and PC's into hamburger factory combat drove me crazy sometimes, still enjoyed the game if there were good people playing and a good story going.

If your in a group with good people and a good interesting story then what rules are or arent being used really shouldnt be that big of a deal.

 

[Land Outcast]

If your in a group with good people and a good interesting story then what rules are or arent being used really shouldnt be that big of a deal.

THAT is rule 0. (IMO)