Rule Zero

[RelentlessImp]

Let's talk about Rule Zero. I've been having this piece of shit thrown in my face lately in regards to D&D 3.5, by people who can't understand that there are specific rules to the game and people might actually like to play by them rather than have a MC's cock slapped in their face.

Rule Zero is one of the shittiest pieces of shit to ever walk the earth. It's what lets MCs ram their dicks up your ass. It's what gives them carte blanche to feel like they don't have to work with their players just because they're sitting in the hot seat. It's freedom to apply Gygaxian bullshit to a game that has a fairly solid set of rules already.

On the other hand, it's freedom to let the MC do what he wants to make the game better for his players. It's allowing a rule to be adjusted because it's annoying, bogs down the game, and/or makes things blow up. It's letting the MC change the game so that everyone enjoys it more.

So why is it the first one only gets applied in 99.9% of cases? Why is it that Rule Zero is used, by and large, to make games worse? Moreover, why the fuck do we even need a Rule Zero in the first place? Why do we need the rules telling the MC it's okay to be a railroading, cockblocking, magical realming jackass? And why does it make people feel like they have the steaming genitalia of Genghis Khan when they tell people that it's wrong to want to play by the rules because the MC has Rule Zero on his side?

You know what? I don't think any of these people have actually read the DMG on Running a Session. You know what Rule Six under that one is? Knowing the Rules. (As a side note, "making mistakes" shortly after lists a non-LA race with +4 Strength and Dexterity as a mistake. WotC really should have read their own material.)

So why is it when you ask for an MC to know the rules, and run by the rules, people start screaming "Rule Zero" at you? Are they shitty MCs? Are they MTPers? Or are they just upset that someone else enjoys the game in a different way than they do? Is it literally a case of "Stop liking what I don't like"? Or is Rule Zero so ingrained into bad players that questioning the MC is akin to declaring war on your neighboring country?

[Ancient History]

Power-tripping, a lot of them. Investing absolute authority in the MC was probably originally designed to end rules arguments by giving the MC sui generis ability to cut the Gordion Knot of arguments and keep the game moving, but what it leads to is ego-stroking and hurt feelings. My rule zero is "Remember: We're here to have fun."

[Shady314]

So why is it the first one only gets applied in 99.9% of cases?

I find many people drawn to DMing are not well suited to it. For example they consider themselves writers and these kinds of people want super plot critical NPCs that railroad the superfluous PCs along the story they've written. Or they are control freaks that will respond poorly to PCs surprising them especially crushing a carefully prepared encounter. Or they have self esteem issues so the chance to "play god" is appealing and have to insert their DM penis N/PC. Even a relatively normal and well adjusted person will tend to be shit at improv and will have trouble reacting well to the unexpected.

The point is they think they are applying the second one. However as with all entertainment the odds are that what someone creates will be shitty to mediocre rather than great. So your average DM thinks they are being funny, or injecting drama or telling an awesome story and then is genuinely surprised to find out they're not. Then they are going to get defensive as people do when they perceive something they are invested in is under attack. So they are going to fall back on Rule Zero to defend themselves.

The houserule issue is the same thing. Everyone thinks they can do better. Everyone has their own little issues and that particular place they draw the line. This is too OP. This is too unrealistic. Rule Zero gives them approval to change whatever they want. Again they think they are making it better because to them they are but the odds are they are fucking something up.

[Ice9]

So why is it the first one only gets applied in 99.9% of cases?

I don't know that it is, I just think there's not much to talk about in the latter case, so people don't.

Like, I've used Rule 0 lots of times, in situations like "Ok, that last hit didn't quite kill the monster, it has like 10 hp left, but the fight is a forgone conclusion anyway so I'm just going to declare it dead and save time." I doubt any of the players even noticed that happened, and if they did, I really doubt they'd bother posting about it online.

Also in situations like "These feats are weak-sauce, so I'm combining them into one feat", which the players did notice, but I doubt any of them posted about. Why would they, really?

[Kaelik]

The problem is really simple, there are two situations in which the DM can want to change something:

1) Everyone wants to change things.
2) Only the DM wants to change things.

If everyone, players and DMs alike, (or the majority, or someone is willing to go along with it even if they don't like that, or however your group resolves disputes) then that isn't rule zero. That is just the group agreeing that Gate is stupid.

If on the other hand, only the DM thinks something need changes, and the players don't, then and only then is rule zero invoked. So while technically all changes to the rules could be rule zero, in practice, only rule changes the players hate are actually rule zero.

It therefore follows that if you don't think the DM knows better than the players what makes the game good for the players, you oppose rule zero.

But of course, grognardia is extremely committed to the idea that the DM knows better than the players what is good for them.

[Dogbert]

"Those who want power should not have it."

The moment someone uses the words "power" or "authority" in a discussion about GMing, that's my cue to leave, and that's why the moment someone professes love for 5E I see it as a red flag.

God bless the internet, my gaming pool is endless so I don't sweat the viking hats. If a table has a viking hat I just look for better options. I'm the house and the house always wins.

[Chamomile]

"Those who want power should not have it."

The moment someone uses the words "power" or "authority" in a discussion about GMing, that's my cue to leave,

Curiously enough, I have found this applies as much to a GM looking for red flags to problem players as a player looking for red flags to problem GMs. Any player who talks about GM power or authority is about 70% likely to be a dickhead who you're going to have to bludgeon with your GM screen to stop from running roughshod over other party members, gumming up gameplay by asking a million variations on the exact same rules question hoping you will eventually give in and ignore RAW or pre-agreed upon house rules in favor of whatever stupid argument they're making ("realism" is popular), or sometimes outright lying about the contents of their character sheet.

[Dogbert]

("realism" is popular)

Funny, "Realism" is another red-flag word for me. I never seek games where realizms are a thing, so the moment someone brings that word up it becomes a dead giveaway for me.

, or sometimes outright lying about the contents of their character sheet.

It's been so long since I last had to deal with that kind of human caricatures that sometimes I need to be reminded that they in fact, still exist, and didn't stop existing just because of me learning to screen people before accepting new people at my table (or accepting invitations to PuG tables). Thank you for the reminder.

[PhoneLobster]

Yeah, "Rule Zero", "Authority", "Power", "Realism", definitely red flags.

Let me just throw in "Gritty", "Grim", 'Dark", "Low Magic", "Intrigue", "Betrayal", "OSR" and "2nd Edition".

[TOZ]

Even a relatively normal and well adjusted person will tend to be shit at improv and will have trouble reacting well to the unexpected.

Guilty. I'm working on it though.

[Dogbert]

Even a relatively normal and well adjusted person will tend to be shit at improv and will have trouble reacting well to the unexpected.

Personally, I love when players outsmart my predicaments as I take it as a sign they are, in fact, paying attention and actually caring enough to get involved... but then I have never been accused of being a "normal and well adjusted person."

[OgreBattle]

Would it help if it wasn't called rule 0 but "the last rule"? Then you word it in a way where The Last Rule is only used if no actual rule in your game covers the given situation.

[Kaelik]

Would it help if it wasn't called rule 0 but "the last rule"? Then you word it in a way where The Last Rule is only used if no actual rule in your game covers the given situation.

You would still only use it when the players and DM disagree, and the DM is doing shit to fuck them in the ass because he knows better than them.

[zugschef]

What if there was a rule that if all PCs agree they can veto the MC?

[Kaelik]

What if there was a rule that if all PCs agree they can veto the MC?

That would be pointless, that would just be a game without Rule Zero. As I already laid out, Rule Zero is not used to change the rules when everyone agrees, that is just called "everyone agrees to change the rules."

[Chamomile]

If you are attempting to legislate your buddy into doing what the majority of the group wants during a group activity, you are seeking entirely the wrong solution to the problem of having a buddy who does not understand how group activities work.

[Dogbert]

You need tone as much as rules in order to convey the right spirit for a game. If you want a player-empowering game, make sure both rules AND tone are player-friendly.

Having said this, no rule set can protect anyone from a crap GM on its own. The only way to put a viking hat in their place is standing up for yourself and/or vote with your feet (because really, if the person at the helm is that useless, then what are you even doing there? Suffering a viking hat is tacitly endorsing them).

[K]

I am consistently amazed that groups don't talk over rules and rulings. A five-minute conversation has literally solved every problem in every long-term group I've played with.

You really can get people to be fair and balanced if you say things like "well, if we handle invisibility like that, then the monsters get to do that too."

[Kaelik]

I am consistently amazed that groups don't talk over rules and rulings. A five-minute conversation has literally solved every problem in every long-term group I've played with.

You really can get people to be fair and balanced if you say things like "well, if we handle invisibility like that, then the monsters get to do that too."

This. I've never had any ruling issue that wasn't better resolved by talking about it.

[rasmuswagner]

Yeah, "Rule Zero", "Authority", "Power", "Realism", definitely red flags.

Let me just throw in "Gritty", "Grim", 'Dark", "Low Magic", "Intrigue", "Betrayal", "OSR" and "2nd Edition".

Jesus, spoiler that shit would you? I just had another seizure just reading that.

[MisterDee]

I am consistently amazed that groups don't talk over rules and rulings. A five-minute conversation has literally solved every problem in every long-term group I've played with.

Thirded. At this point, my stock answer for all those table disagreements threads is "talk about it, if that doesn't work, leave and/or do something else instead of playing RPGs."