A random rant on "Rule 0" [Archive] - Wizards Community

A random rant on "Rule 0" [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
StormKnight
05-25-05, 11:19 AM <Puts on long beard and adopts best "grandpa" voice for a "back in my day" rant>

Seems like every other post I see "Rule 0".
"You shouldn't have to resort to Rule 0."
"Well, I can change it, using Rule 0."
"I don't like DMs who use Rule 0."

Now, back when I was a young roleplayer, we didn't have any of this 'Rule 0' business. And we liked it!

Nobody had to tell us that the DM is allowed to make his own world. Heck, he probably had to carve it out all himself, sketching worlds on hex paper and doing without fancy-schmancy computer mapping programs. Sometimes we even had to hand draw the hexes!

Nobody had to tell us we were allowed to tweak the rules to prevent some player from doing 100 damage an attack with her level 1 character. If we saw you could do 100 damage with a level 1 character using a wet noodle, we laughed at the silly rule and changed it!

Nobody had to pull out a stray rule to keep a certain character out of their campaign. You said, "Hey, there are NO ELVES in this world, you can't play an Elf. Or a Drow. Or a half-elf. DEAL WITH IT!" and people dealt with it.

Roleplaying games have always been about giving players a toolbox to create their own games, stories of their characters, and their own little legends. You don't need anybodys permission to change it! You don't need some "Rule 0" to make your own world, or change the rules, or whatever the heck you want! 'Rule 0' should not be a fall back, or a defense, or an accusation. It should be so implicit in the game that it never even needs to be stated.

Throw out rule 1. Replace it with three rules. I know, three is harder than one, but they'll get you by.
1) Use common sense and thorough thinking.
2) Communicate with your players.
3) Make the game what you and your players want it to be.
Neerie
05-25-05, 11:40 AM Well, all those examples you mentionned as how it was before rule 0, are actually prime examples of rule 0. Rule 0 is just that, not a written rule, it's the "rule" that says that the DM controls the game and that he can change things to fit his game world.
Prgrmr@wrk
05-25-05, 11:46 AM I think he's just ticked that they named the rule, thereby making it semi-official.
Draco Strang
05-25-05, 12:25 PM I love Rule 0. Instead of having to say "I'm the DM and I say so" I get to say "Rule 0 folks. Learn it, live it, and love it."
ReivaxZerai
05-25-05, 12:53 PM Preach on, grandpa!

I agree. By making it written, in a book, canon, official, whatever silly tag you want to give it, you make it "arguable".
There are some people who, the minute they see a rule, they have to think of an exception to that rule and how they'll get around the rule.

If there's no rule, there's no ground for the one arguing against it to stand on.
If it's just the DM saying, look, you either sit down and shut up or go home, there isn't much the guy can say.
CzarGarrett
05-25-05, 01:28 PM Its always been a known fact that the DM controls all in a game with an iron fist.

Now its in writing, and if you don't like it, tough noogies.
WanderingGhost
05-25-05, 01:30 PM Does anyone actually know what Rule 0 is? Go on, read it.

From the PHB:

Check with your Dungeon Master

Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group.

Please note that in 3.5, this doesn't even have a rule number anymore.

Also note which section of the PHB it is in. The introduction, where rules haven't even started, under a heading marked Character Creation.

Granted, a DM does have the discretion to make changes to suit the game. But they do not have the discretion to ruin the game for others. There are many people who misuse this "rule", and the misuse tends to lead to a game that is no longer fun. And it all ends up here at the boards.

The "rule" as written, implies a trust in the DM that the game will be a worthwhile experience for the players involved, and that the DM has a certain level of competence to run the game. If you do not like how your DM is running a game in which you're playing, confront him, and explain your displeasure. If he is unwilling to make some compromise to make the game more enjoyable for all involved, leave. Start a new game, and move on.
Prgrmr@wrk
05-25-05, 01:35 PM If you really dislike having rule 0 in your game, rule 0 it out.
Zen rule lawyering.
weasel fierce
05-25-05, 01:49 PM The published rules are rough guidelines to how you could play your game.

Its your books and your game. Do with it whatever you want.
Thorak
05-25-05, 01:55 PM Rule 0 isn't new. From the 2nd edition DMG;
"The DM's 'active hand' extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person; you. Each DM must tailor his campaign to fit his own style and the style of his players."

Also, a bit later;
"The rules to the AD&D 2nd Edition game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we know of has ever been playtested more heavily than this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to be right may be unbalanced and anachronistic in your campaign. The only thing that can make the AD&D game 'right' for all players is the intelligent application of DM discretion."

And, to sum it up;
"In short, follow the rules as they are writter if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

Rule 0 isn't a new concept. The above was printed in 1989, meaning rule 0 is at least 16 years old. Maybe more, but I don't have the 1st edition DMG to check.
weasel fierce
05-25-05, 01:58 PM well, the original 3 book D&D had rules for hitting things and saving throws, and little else. So I'd say rule 0 goes back a fair ways ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-25-05, 03:15 PM I'll stop touting the virtues of Rule 0 (may it shine forever in the light), when other 'grandpa' types stop getting beligerant with me and saying I'm not playing DnD because I built my own world and use houserules that work for my group.

The RAW is simple raw materials.
StormKnight
05-25-05, 03:25 PM Please forgive me if I got so busy being curmudgeony that I may have missed my original point.

The idea that "its your game, do what you want with it", has been around since Basic D&D. Its been in every RPG I've ever seen. (Actually, you can do what you want with any game, but that's a different story).

I don't mind that the books point that out; its probably a good thing to let knew players know, and sometimes old players need to be reminded.

What I am absolutely sick of is:

1) People who feel that they need some sort of official backing to change the rules. You don't people! You don't need to say "RULE 0!" every time you mention a change. You are free to change it. Other people are free not to like your changes, but you are free to make whatever changes you want. Even if D&D had never had its "rule 0" rule, we would still have houserules and homebrew campaigns! Really!

2) People who feel that "Rule 0" is sufficient reason that their players should love every change you make. Just because the rules say you can change them, doesn't mean everyone is going to like your rules or want to play by your rules!

3) People who feel compelled to argue with any change on the grounds that "you shouldn't rule 0 it", feeling perhaps that "rule 0" is some sort of offense to the otherwise pure game, and if it could only be stricken out people would just stop the heresey of adjusting the perfect system. Guess what, they wouldn't. They'd still make their own rules and own worlds.

Perhaps WotC did make a mistake with "Rule 0", and that was creating such an easy to use buzzword for it that would fill up the forums. If they had never said "Rule 0" I doubt people would be saying, "You can change the game, check out page 3 paragraph 2. Or maybe they would anyway.

"Rule 0" is not an excuse, or a defense, or a permit. You don't need to cite it. You don't need to reference it. Its an explanation of a basic part of games. Something is very wrong when it is being quoted in every other post!

(One more time, for as much clarity as possible: I completely and totally support the idea that the players and DM should change, mangle, fold, spindle and mutilate the game ANY way they want.)
Neerie
05-25-05, 03:35 PM Well, I see your point: you don't like people justifying their decisions by yelling "Rule 0!" But it's really the same as saying "I'm the DM and I say so."

I agree though that the DM should bend/change the rules and make house rules to the extend that they don't make the game total crap for the players. There are good changes: those that fit the game world for example, and there are the bad changes: those made by the DM just because they're picky.
Neodymium
05-25-05, 03:39 PM If you really dislike having rule 0 in your game, rule 0 it out.
Zen rule lawyering.

My head a splode with delight.
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-25-05, 04:16 PM In forum terms, Rule 0 means 'shut up and leave me alone' or, 'this completely justifies any and all mistakes made by the designers'.

One shouldn't need to be said, but it does and the other should never be said, but is.
StormKnight
05-25-05, 05:06 PM Well, I see your point: you don't like people justifying their decisions by yelling "Rule 0!" But it's really the same as saying "I'm the DM and I say so."

Well, that's partly my point.
Partly, and this is a bit hard to explain, its the overwhelming feeling I get like people think they NEED the justification of "rule 0" to change the game. Like if it wasn't explicitly there, they couldn't do it.
Thanatos02
05-25-05, 05:29 PM I agree.

And when I saw this thread, I thought it was one of my top pet peeves - a rant by someone who has decided that only the RAW is applicable, or that any DM that says "That won't fly." is a poor one.

I was all set to write "A random rant on "A random rant on Rule 0"". I'm glad it's been said by most of the people here.
Tenzhi
05-26-05, 01:17 AM Granted, a DM does have the discretion to make changes to suit the game. But they do not have the discretion to ruin the game for others. There are many people who misuse this "rule", and the misuse tends to lead to a game that is no longer fun. And it all ends up here at the boards.

The DM has discretion to make changes to make the game suit him. Hopefully this will also suit all of his players, but that is not a necessary part of the equation. A rule of life is that you can't please all of the people all of the time - so there's no sense in trying. Run the game your way, and eventually you'll seperate the wheat from the chaff amongst players - which is to say you'll pare down your group to those who are like-minded in play style.

Or you'll run out of players, which is a kind of relaxing prospect in itself...
amethal
05-26-05, 12:43 PM Rule 0 isn't new.... rule 0 is at least 16 years old. Maybe more, but I don't have the 1st edition DMG to check.I don't think they had a "Rule 0" in 1st edition.

I remember Gary Gygax posting on another message board a while back (might have been Enworld) that when people in the past had asked him questions like

"My DM told me X, but the DMG says Y"

he used to answer

"I wrote the DMG, and I can tell you that the book is wrong. The DM is always right"

I don't think it occured to the authors of the 1st edition books that they needed to set out a "rule" that the DM makes the decisions about the game. They couldn't see any other way of playing.

They also didn't bother setting out rule 0(a) which is that the players are free to walk out at any time; and rule 0(b) which is the aim of the game is for everybody to have as much fun as possible.
wordserpent
05-26-05, 01:12 PM I seem to remember in the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide there was a passage that stated: "The DM is the final arbiter of the rules and may change them as he likes". If I had access to my 1 ed DMG I would tell you the page it was on and quote the passage more accurately but my old books are currently on the other side of the planet right now so I can't prove it.

But this concept, "Rule 0" as these young'uns call it nowadays is by no means new.
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-26-05, 05:06 PM "I am the DM, thy DM and thou shalt accept no rules before mine."

-- Me, at the start of the Ere Campaign
amethal
05-26-05, 06:53 PM I seem to remember in the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide there was a passage that stated: "The DM is the final arbiter of the rules and may change them as he likes". If I had access to my 1 ed DMG I would tell you the page it was on and quote the passage more accurately but my old books are currently on the other side of the planet right now so I can't prove it.

But this concept, "Rule 0" as these young'uns call it nowadays is by no means new.I think the original poster's rant is directed at the "unwritten rule" being numbered, written down, quoted and argued with.

Whereas, back in the heady days of first edition it was taken for granted, in the same way that modern gamers assume there will be a sufficient supply of oxygen provided for sessions even though its not in the RAW.

I'd be interested to know if the equivalent of "Rule 0" was actually written down in the 1st edition DMG, if anyone has one handy.
Count Arioch the 28th
05-26-05, 09:35 PM Rule 0 is a good thing if it's used to make the game more enjoyable. (For example, the esteemed Vaalingrade has given a good example of rule 0 in action.)

Rule 0 is NOT there for DMs to use as a crutch when they don't know what the rules ACTUALLY say, nor is it an excuse to be spiteful. (too many DM's I've played with used it in that fashion.)
Solaris
05-26-05, 10:17 PM I'd be interested to know if the equivalent of "Rule 0" was actually written down in the 1st edition DMG, if anyone has one handy.

First Edition AD&D

Dungeon Master's Guide (1979), page 9:

Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly...

Player's Handbook (1978), page 8:

This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse --- since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign.

Original Dungeons & Dragons

Volume 1: Men & Magic (1974), page 4:

These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity ... New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations.
WanderingGhost
05-29-05, 12:55 PM I agree with the general idea that the game is shapable to suit the needs of the group. I don't need to have the game suit me. To suit the game to my taste is elitist and not in my interest. I'm not the only one in the game, and I do try to accomodate my players and involve them in the process as much as possible.

My regular group, which is currently divided, about 100 miles west and east of me, prefers to be involved with the whole DM process. Each has their unique perspective, which allows me to be more effective as a DM. I did not have to separate wheat from chaff to get this group, I always have new players willing to play, and I involve them as much as possible.

I reserve "Rule 0" for when I'm completely stuck, and I need a quick solution. I don't spout off unnecessary rule changes, especially mid-game, just to screw with my players. That's not how you keep loyal players.
Thanatos02
05-29-05, 02:21 PM Spouting off rules changes in-game isn't "Rule 0" so much as it's generic abuse of power. To be honest, anything that lies outside RAW is the domain of Rule 0, but here's the sticker...

If you write a campaign setting, and make a list of differences (culture, races, weapons, ect.) in your game versus a generic game, that's not really Rule 0, that's a setting.

Not knowing the rules, being unwilling to look them up, and coming up with something isn't Rule 0. It's ignorance of the rules (not a crime in and of itself, but can easily lead to arguments and disaster.)

Rule 0 is more along the lines of adding rules and stats where there previously were none, and enforcing logic where the RAW make no sense when applied according to technical guidelines. RAWists tend to dislike Rule 0 because when applied in these situations, it can ignore full application of rules as previously understood by the group (and closes rules loop-holes which may have been being exploited by a munchkin.).

This praticular application of Rule 0 can be seen as "changing the rules in-game to screw over the players" and may be seen as a power-trip by the DM, but coming from someone who's used it (to the dismay of a player who attempted to exploit a loophole) it can also be used to maintain world integrity.

A DM who uses Rule 0 to purposely ruin a PCs day, though, is being a jerk.

One application of Rule 0 was my dissolution of the Paladin's "Poke-mount". Personally, I don't like the rule - it's silly to assume that a Paladin's god has given him extra-dimensional "Horse-space" so that he can keep his animal there like luggage. You can't store anything else there, and it only serves to hold the horse, so it's well suited to keep the space from being abused, but it's also silly. It's designed with a strictly meta-game attitude, and I didn't allow it. Instead, I ruled that the horse can come anywhere when called, but there are times when a Paladin simply can't get to his horse. Like in a tiny cave.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StormKnight 05-25-05, 11:19 AM	<Puts on long beard and adopts best "grandpa" voice for a "back in my day" rant> Seems like every other post I see "Rule 0". "You shouldn't have to resort to Rule 0." "Well, I can change it, using Rule 0." "I don't like DMs who use Rule 0." Now, back when I was a young roleplayer, we didn't have any of this 'Rule 0' business. And we liked it! Nobody had to tell us that the DM is allowed to make his own world. Heck, he probably had to carve it out all himself, sketching worlds on hex paper and doing without fancy-schmancy computer mapping programs. Sometimes we even had to hand draw the hexes! Nobody had to tell us we were allowed to tweak the rules to prevent some player from doing 100 damage an attack with her level 1 character. If we saw you could do 100 damage with a level 1 character using a wet noodle, we laughed at the silly rule and changed it! Nobody had to pull out a stray rule to keep a certain character out of their campaign. You said, "Hey, there are NO ELVES in this world, you can't play an Elf. Or a Drow. Or a half-elf. DEAL WITH IT!" and people dealt with it. Roleplaying games have always been about giving players a toolbox to create their own games, stories of their characters, and their own little legends. You don't need anybodys permission to change it! You don't need some "Rule 0" to make your own world, or change the rules, or whatever the heck you want! 'Rule 0' should not be a fall back, or a defense, or an accusation. It should be so implicit in the game that it never even needs to be stated. Throw out rule 1. Replace it with three rules. I know, three is harder than one, but they'll get you by. 1) Use common sense and thorough thinking. 2) Communicate with your players. 3) Make the game what you and your players want it to be.
Neerie 05-25-05, 11:40 AM	Well, all those examples you mentionned as how it was before rule 0, are actually prime examples of rule 0. Rule 0 is just that, not a written rule, it's the "rule" that says that the DM controls the game and that he can change things to fit his game world.
Prgrmr@wrk 05-25-05, 11:46 AM	I think he's just ticked that they named the rule, thereby making it semi-official.
Draco Strang 05-25-05, 12:25 PM	I love Rule 0. Instead of having to say "I'm the DM and I say so" I get to say "Rule 0 folks. Learn it, live it, and love it."
ReivaxZerai 05-25-05, 12:53 PM	Preach on, grandpa! I agree. By making it written, in a book, canon, official, whatever silly tag you want to give it, you make it "arguable". There are some people who, the minute they see a rule, they have to think of an exception to that rule and how they'll get around the rule. If there's no rule, there's no ground for the one arguing against it to stand on. If it's just the DM saying, look, you either sit down and shut up or go home, there isn't much the guy can say.
CzarGarrett 05-25-05, 01:28 PM	Its always been a known fact that the DM controls all in a game with an iron fist. Now its in writing, and if you don't like it, tough noogies.
WanderingGhost 05-25-05, 01:30 PM	Does anyone actually know what Rule 0 is? Go on, read it. From the PHB: Check with your Dungeon Master Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group. Please note that in 3.5, this doesn't even have a rule number anymore. Also note which section of the PHB it is in. The introduction, where rules haven't even started, under a heading marked Character Creation. Granted, a DM does have the discretion to make changes to suit the game. But they do not have the discretion to ruin the game for others. There are many people who misuse this "rule", and the misuse tends to lead to a game that is no longer fun. And it all ends up here at the boards. The "rule" as written, implies a trust in the DM that the game will be a worthwhile experience for the players involved, and that the DM has a certain level of competence to run the game. If you do not like how your DM is running a game in which you're playing, confront him, and explain your displeasure. If he is unwilling to make some compromise to make the game more enjoyable for all involved, leave. Start a new game, and move on.
Prgrmr@wrk 05-25-05, 01:35 PM	If you really dislike having rule 0 in your game, rule 0 it out. Zen rule lawyering.
weasel fierce 05-25-05, 01:49 PM	The published rules are rough guidelines to how you could play your game. Its your books and your game. Do with it whatever you want.
Thorak 05-25-05, 01:55 PM	Rule 0 isn't new. From the 2nd edition DMG; "The DM's 'active hand' extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person; you. Each DM must tailor his campaign to fit his own style and the style of his players." Also, a bit later; "The rules to the AD&D 2nd Edition game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we know of has ever been playtested more heavily than this one. But that doesn't mean it's perfect. What we consider to be right may be unbalanced and anachronistic in your campaign. The only thing that can make the AD&D game 'right' for all players is the intelligent application of DM discretion." And, to sum it up; "In short, follow the rules as they are writter if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game." Rule 0 isn't a new concept. The above was printed in 1989, meaning rule 0 is at least 16 years old. Maybe more, but I don't have the 1st edition DMG to check.
weasel fierce 05-25-05, 01:58 PM	well, the original 3 book D&D had rules for hitting things and saving throws, and little else. So I'd say rule 0 goes back a fair ways ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-25-05, 03:15 PM	I'll stop touting the virtues of Rule 0 (may it shine forever in the light), when other 'grandpa' types stop getting beligerant with me and saying I'm not playing DnD because I built my own world and use houserules that work for my group. The RAW is simple raw materials.
StormKnight 05-25-05, 03:25 PM	Please forgive me if I got so busy being curmudgeony that I may have missed my original point. The idea that "its your game, do what you want with it", has been around since Basic D&D. Its been in every RPG I've ever seen. (Actually, you can do what you want with any game, but that's a different story). I don't mind that the books point that out; its probably a good thing to let knew players know, and sometimes old players need to be reminded. What I am absolutely sick of is: 1) People who feel that they need some sort of official backing to change the rules. You don't people! You don't need to say "RULE 0!" every time you mention a change. You are free to change it. Other people are free not to like your changes, but you are free to make whatever changes you want. Even if D&D had never had its "rule 0" rule, we would still have houserules and homebrew campaigns! Really! 2) People who feel that "Rule 0" is sufficient reason that their players should love every change you make. Just because the rules say you can change them, doesn't mean everyone is going to like your rules or want to play by your rules! 3) People who feel compelled to argue with any change on the grounds that "you shouldn't rule 0 it", feeling perhaps that "rule 0" is some sort of offense to the otherwise pure game, and if it could only be stricken out people would just stop the heresey of adjusting the perfect system. Guess what, they wouldn't. They'd still make their own rules and own worlds. Perhaps WotC did make a mistake with "Rule 0", and that was creating such an easy to use buzzword for it that would fill up the forums. If they had never said "Rule 0" I doubt people would be saying, "You can change the game, check out page 3 paragraph 2. Or maybe they would anyway. "Rule 0" is not an excuse, or a defense, or a permit. You don't need to cite it. You don't need to reference it. Its an explanation of a basic part of games. Something is very wrong when it is being quoted in every other post! (One more time, for as much clarity as possible: I completely and totally support the idea that the players and DM should change, mangle, fold, spindle and mutilate the game ANY way they want.)
Neerie 05-25-05, 03:35 PM	Well, I see your point: you don't like people justifying their decisions by yelling "Rule 0!" But it's really the same as saying "I'm the DM and I say so." I agree though that the DM should bend/change the rules and make house rules to the extend that they don't make the game total crap for the players. There are good changes: those that fit the game world for example, and there are the bad changes: those made by the DM just because they're picky.
Neodymium 05-25-05, 03:39 PM	If you really dislike having rule 0 in your game, rule 0 it out. Zen rule lawyering. My head a splode with delight.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-25-05, 04:16 PM	In forum terms, Rule 0 means 'shut up and leave me alone' or, 'this completely justifies any and all mistakes made by the designers'. One shouldn't need to be said, but it does and the other should never be said, but is.
StormKnight 05-25-05, 05:06 PM	Well, I see your point: you don't like people justifying their decisions by yelling "Rule 0!" But it's really the same as saying "I'm the DM and I say so." Well, that's partly my point. Partly, and this is a bit hard to explain, its the overwhelming feeling I get like people think they NEED the justification of "rule 0" to change the game. Like if it wasn't explicitly there, they couldn't do it.
Thanatos02 05-25-05, 05:29 PM	I agree. And when I saw this thread, I thought it was one of my top pet peeves - a rant by someone who has decided that only the RAW is applicable, or that any DM that says "That won't fly." is a poor one. I was all set to write "A random rant on "A random rant on Rule 0"". I'm glad it's been said by most of the people here.
Tenzhi 05-26-05, 01:17 AM	Granted, a DM does have the discretion to make changes to suit the game. But they do not have the discretion to ruin the game for others. There are many people who misuse this "rule", and the misuse tends to lead to a game that is no longer fun. And it all ends up here at the boards. The DM has discretion to make changes to make the game suit him. Hopefully this will also suit all of his players, but that is not a necessary part of the equation. A rule of life is that you can't please all of the people all of the time - so there's no sense in trying. Run the game your way, and eventually you'll seperate the wheat from the chaff amongst players - which is to say you'll pare down your group to those who are like-minded in play style. Or you'll run out of players, which is a kind of relaxing prospect in itself...
amethal 05-26-05, 12:43 PM	Rule 0 isn't new.... rule 0 is at least 16 years old. Maybe more, but I don't have the 1st edition DMG to check.I don't think they had a "Rule 0" in 1st edition. I remember Gary Gygax posting on another message board a while back (might have been Enworld) that when people in the past had asked him questions like "My DM told me X, but the DMG says Y" he used to answer "I wrote the DMG, and I can tell you that the book is wrong. The DM is always right" I don't think it occured to the authors of the 1st edition books that they needed to set out a "rule" that the DM makes the decisions about the game. They couldn't see any other way of playing. They also didn't bother setting out rule 0(a) which is that the players are free to walk out at any time; and rule 0(b) which is the aim of the game is for everybody to have as much fun as possible.
wordserpent 05-26-05, 01:12 PM	I seem to remember in the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide there was a passage that stated: "The DM is the final arbiter of the rules and may change them as he likes". If I had access to my 1 ed DMG I would tell you the page it was on and quote the passage more accurately but my old books are currently on the other side of the planet right now so I can't prove it. But this concept, "Rule 0" as these young'uns call it nowadays is by no means new.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-26-05, 05:06 PM	"I am the DM, thy DM and thou shalt accept no rules before mine." -- Me, at the start of the Ere Campaign
amethal 05-26-05, 06:53 PM	I seem to remember in the 1st edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide there was a passage that stated: "The DM is the final arbiter of the rules and may change them as he likes". If I had access to my 1 ed DMG I would tell you the page it was on and quote the passage more accurately but my old books are currently on the other side of the planet right now so I can't prove it. But this concept, "Rule 0" as these young'uns call it nowadays is by no means new.I think the original poster's rant is directed at the "unwritten rule" being numbered, written down, quoted and argued with. Whereas, back in the heady days of first edition it was taken for granted, in the same way that modern gamers assume there will be a sufficient supply of oxygen provided for sessions even though its not in the RAW. I'd be interested to know if the equivalent of "Rule 0" was actually written down in the 1st edition DMG, if anyone has one handy.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-26-05, 09:35 PM	Rule 0 is a good thing if it's used to make the game more enjoyable. (For example, the esteemed Vaalingrade has given a good example of rule 0 in action.) Rule 0 is NOT there for DMs to use as a crutch when they don't know what the rules ACTUALLY say, nor is it an excuse to be spiteful. (too many DM's I've played with used it in that fashion.)
Solaris 05-26-05, 10:17 PM	I'd be interested to know if the equivalent of "Rule 0" was actually written down in the 1st edition DMG, if anyone has one handy. First Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide (1979), page 9: Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly... Player's Handbook (1978), page 8: This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN. Participants in a campaign have no recourse to the publisher, but they do have ultimate recourse --- since the most effective protest is withdrawal from the offending campaign. Original Dungeons & Dragons Volume 1: Men & Magic (1974), page 4: These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity ... New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations.
WanderingGhost 05-29-05, 12:55 PM	I agree with the general idea that the game is shapable to suit the needs of the group. I don't need to have the game suit me. To suit the game to my taste is elitist and not in my interest. I'm not the only one in the game, and I do try to accomodate my players and involve them in the process as much as possible. My regular group, which is currently divided, about 100 miles west and east of me, prefers to be involved with the whole DM process. Each has their unique perspective, which allows me to be more effective as a DM. I did not have to separate wheat from chaff to get this group, I always have new players willing to play, and I involve them as much as possible. I reserve "Rule 0" for when I'm completely stuck, and I need a quick solution. I don't spout off unnecessary rule changes, especially mid-game, just to screw with my players. That's not how you keep loyal players.
Thanatos02 05-29-05, 02:21 PM	Spouting off rules changes in-game isn't "Rule 0" so much as it's generic abuse of power. To be honest, anything that lies outside RAW is the domain of Rule 0, but here's the sticker... If you write a campaign setting, and make a list of differences (culture, races, weapons, ect.) in your game versus a generic game, that's not really Rule 0, that's a setting. Not knowing the rules, being unwilling to look them up, and coming up with something isn't Rule 0. It's ignorance of the rules (not a crime in and of itself, but can easily lead to arguments and disaster.) Rule 0 is more along the lines of adding rules and stats where there previously were none, and enforcing logic where the RAW make no sense when applied according to technical guidelines. RAWists tend to dislike Rule 0 because when applied in these situations, it can ignore full application of rules as previously understood by the group (and closes rules loop-holes which may have been being exploited by a munchkin.). This praticular application of Rule 0 can be seen as "changing the rules in-game to screw over the players" and may be seen as a power-trip by the DM, but coming from someone who's used it (to the dismay of a player who attempted to exploit a loophole) it can also be used to maintain world integrity. A DM who uses Rule 0 to purposely ruin a PCs day, though, is being a jerk. One application of Rule 0 was my dissolution of the Paladin's "Poke-mount". Personally, I don't like the rule - it's silly to assume that a Paladin's god has given him extra-dimensional "Horse-space" so that he can keep his animal there like luggage. You can't store anything else there, and it only serves to hold the horse, so it's well suited to keep the space from being abused, but it's also silly. It's designed with a strictly meta-game attitude, and I didn't allow it. Instead, I ruled that the horse can come anywhere when called, but there are times when a Paladin simply can't get to his horse. Like in a tiny cave.