Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8347061" data-attributes="member: 22779">I've always found that the expansion of Rule 0 from the early days to now to be problematic.&nbsp; Rule 0, back in the day, basically said, &quot;When there is a point in the game where either the rules are conflicting or absent, the DM is empowered to make a ruling and the table is expected to abide by that ruling. &quot;&nbsp; Which, back in the day, made perfect sense since the rules systems of early RPG's were lacking resolution mechanics for so many things.&nbsp; The infamous &quot;Can I swim&quot; question in early D&amp;D, for example.&nbsp; &quot;How far can I jump?&quot; is another one.&nbsp; The rules are either conflicting or absent, so, the DM steps in to fill in the gaps.But, now, rulesets are largely comprehensive.&nbsp; Many RPG's have basic, comprehesive rules for determining success.&nbsp; Roll X and you succeed - Savage Worlds for example has this - any result of 6 (I think it's six, five or six?&nbsp; It's been a while) is a success.&nbsp; How you get that six doesn't matter - whether it's a d4 with pluses or a d12 - so long as you score a six, you succeed.&nbsp; There's no real need for any Rule 0 engagement.&nbsp; The trick is, people have expanded on the notion of Rule 0 to change the DM from referee to rules creator.&nbsp; Referee's don't make the rules.&nbsp; Or, well, they shouldn't.&nbsp; Which means that people point to Rule 0 as justification for anything the DM does.&nbsp; You decide to take away a warlock's powers because they didn't play out their pact to your satisfaction?&nbsp; Rule 0!&nbsp; Never minding that there's absolutely nothing in the 5e ruleset that even suggests that a DM can or even should do this.&nbsp; Of course a DM can do this.&nbsp; It's Rule 0!As you can see, I'm not a huge fan of Rule 0 as it's typically used by some DM's.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8347061, member: 22779"] I've always found that the expansion of Rule 0 from the early days to now to be problematic. Rule 0, back in the day, basically said, "When there is a point in the game where either the rules are conflicting or absent, the DM is empowered to make a ruling and the table is expected to abide by that ruling. " Which, back in the day, made perfect sense since the rules systems of early RPG's were lacking resolution mechanics for so many things. The infamous "Can I swim" question in early D&D, for example. "How far can I jump?" is another one. The rules are either conflicting or absent, so, the DM steps in to fill in the gaps. But, now, rulesets are largely comprehensive. Many RPG's have basic, comprehesive rules for determining success. Roll X and you succeed - Savage Worlds for example has this - any result of 6 (I think it's six, five or six? It's been a while) is a success. How you get that six doesn't matter - whether it's a d4 with pluses or a d12 - so long as you score a six, you succeed. There's no real need for any Rule 0 engagement. The trick is, people have expanded on the notion of Rule 0 to change the DM from referee to rules creator. Referee's don't make the rules. Or, well, they shouldn't. Which means that people point to Rule 0 as justification for anything the DM does. You decide to take away a warlock's powers because they didn't play out their pact to your satisfaction? Rule 0! Never minding that there's absolutely nothing in the 5e ruleset that even suggests that a DM can or even should do this. Of course a DM can do this. It's Rule 0! As you can see, I'm not a huge fan of Rule 0 as it's typically used by some DM's. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification