The True Rule 0.

[Ranger REG]

Is there a need for Rule 0?

I would think it was understood enough not to have to spell it out, the same way "don't kill your neighbors" is in real life, but in both cases we know it doesn't work that way.

Wait. No one told me I can't kill my neighbor.

* destroyed his planner book *

A better rule would be, "The DM is the final arbiter of all rules disputes while AT the table," but I don't recall anywhere in the PHB or DMG that it's spelled out in black and white that way. I'd rather have it in there, or at LEAST a discussion of table rules, including this one, "group majority vote" as another, etc. And then, tell people your group needs to pick a way and stick to it. Me, I'd prefer if it just said that, similar to the way Gary G. put it back in 1979, the DM is final referee, and what rulings he or she makes sticks.

I know it has been present in ALL of the previous editions (either the Foreword or Introduction chapter), but no rules lawyers would take that seriously. I should know, I used to be one.

But Rule 0 is a direct order for the players. You could say it's the Prime Directive of All Roleplaying Games.

 

[IcyCool]

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.

The game should be fun, for ALL folks at the table, GM included. There is no game without the players, and there is no game without the GM.

If the GM runs a realistic game, and the players don't want that, the GM finds new players and the players find a new GM. Or the players play the realistic game and have fun.

 

[S'mon]

I don't understand this concept. Whether you [blindly] play out the scenario that gets the PCs into the campaign start, or the DM tells you what happens to get the PCs into the campaign start, the PCs still start dead. Either way, the PCs still start the campaign at the same spot. You'd rather the DM tell you what happens to start, than to play out what happens to start?

Quasqueton

Yes. One is a deprotagonising railroad, the other is just setting the start conditions for the game, no different from "you meet in the tavern..."

Edit: The other thing is that I may not be interested in the kind of campaign the GM is secretly planning, but was sucked in by the false 'bait' premise.
If it's just a 1-off scenario, ok I'll go with it and see if I have fun. If it's a one-off episode in a continuing campaign, like a "2 main characters become ghosts" episode of many TV shows, in principle I'd say it was ok but in practice I've had a visceral and not really rational reaction against this kind of thing, so best to avoid it.

 

[CZHorse]

I don't understand the point of this thread, or the point of a rule 0. Roleplaying is a game. Games were made to have fun, that is why we play them. If you are not having fun, don't play. The only exception to this is professional sports, where players get paid very well to perform in the game, and nobody except them should care if they are having fun. However, if they are not, then it is time for a career change.

When roleplayers start to get paid for performing then we can start to worry about this topic, but not until.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

To me, it appears that players who want to know what is going to happen in the future are expressing a certain lack of trust in the GM. Perfectly understandable in most cases, including most games I've been in. The best of games, however, have trust.

But you're talking about a DM who sets out to deliberately kill the PC's. Without the players actually knowing what's going on it is more than understandable that the result of an intentional TPK is a lot of highly irate players looking for DM blood because heappears to be acting like a jerk - even more so when it's only the first game session.

When you have gotten to know and trust the GM, is it not true that they can do things which seem less than fun in the short term but have an exceptionally cool payoff?

Yes, but a deliberate TPK in the first session doesn't fall into that category unless the players have MORE than normal reasons to trust the DM as he's going all Reservoir Dogs on your PC's.

And does knowing what's going to happen spoil the surprise?

Yes it can, though it doesn't necessarily have to. It should be possible to give players some indication that the first session will be decidedly out of the ordinary without giving away what's going to happen. But just springing this sort of thing on players without warning can only lead to more trouble than it's worth.

After all, this is only going to be ONE session out of the length of the entire campaign. If your entire campaign hinges on ANY session going exactly the way you want it to much less the very first you're really bucking the odds for it all to simply meltdown rather than launch the entire campaign with players praising your ingenuity forever after.