Wow.
So, we all know rule zero, yes?
It is in every, and I do mean every, RPG I've ever played, and I think that is true for you as well.
So imagine my disbelief when a player started to rant and rave about the 'fallacy' of rule zero. That any GM that doesn't go by the rules perfectly is an idiot.
And, to my surprise, it wasn't this one guy. There are many people out there that believe this.
I mean, what do you say to this?
Maybe this isn't asking for advice. Maybe this is just me being so shocked that there is even one player like this, I gotta vent to someone who will help me sort this out in my head.
Does anyone have anything to say to this?
I asked the player to leave. Am I in the wrong here?
I don't think I've ever played a game beyond the complexity of Monopoly, where house rules weren't implemented at some point. That includes games like Risk. Rule Zero isn't just a rule, it's something I've found inherent in the personalities of a lot of gamers. It's an attempt to expand on a good game and make it better.
What do I say to those that say I'm not doing it right if I change the rules? I simply say that my game probably isn't for them and they should find someone else to play with.
|
stuff:Scenario: Mike, a seasoned dungeonmaster since 1977, is a an old-skool DM with a background in zoology. When he runs games he tells players he is absolutely in charge and uses a lot of DM-Fiat ruling and handwaiving, but is games are always fast, flowing, fun, albeit "on-the-tracks". He decides to attend somebody else's Pathfinder Roleplaying game and experiences a low blood sugar moment. He is also on medication for high blood pressure. During the game, he silently surpresses his old skool disagreement with things like "magic shops in town" and the plausable height of the ceiling in a cavern which would prohibit ogres from effectively swinging their great axes. His tension builds, and when the GM decides the players will reach Mulmaster by dusk, he explains that pushing horses that hard for so long on the journey from Maskyr's Eye could...
That's the one!
The Laws of D&D:
Rule -1: There isn't a game without players
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
Rule 1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.
Take a game with 5 players and a DM.
One player leaves...the game can still continue.
The GM leaves.... the game is over.
Until one of the players realizes he or she could DM.
And what are the boards coming to when not only does Pax post without bashing 4e, but I also agree with him. Oh God, I'm about to favorite a Pax post.
There's no voting on rules at my table. There is, however, considerable room for negotiation.
|
|
As the given example, it was not a rules as written discussion that occurred at my gaming table, but how literally one interprets them.
Also, the comment 'The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.' makes me wonder how antagonistic people get at the gaming table. Whatever happened to being nice and having common sense? I guess I came running to the forums because this player acted oddly at my gaming table; typically a rules discussion is just that; a discussion that occurs after the night's session is completed, typically over milk and my wife's freshly baked cookies. I saw someone else prays with their gaming group; while I'm not that faithful, that sounds more of the level of acceptance I think my gaming group typically has.
|
Whatever happened to being nice and having common sense?
Nothing. My table is full of niceness and common sense. At least, sense as I see it. Maybe others would say differently. Is your table different? Where do you think it went? Sorry, that was a little stream of consciousness. But really, what do you think happened to it all?
|
|
More of a philosophical question, ain't it? It isn't just our hobby, it's the damn world. Every day, you read the paper and you hear more about how people are awful and greedy; don't want to give back to their fellow man unless they share the same philosophy, and sometimes not even then.
I mean, the hate-on that came from the 4ed/Pathfinder split? Whoa. I don't recall that when AD&D went to 3ed. Heck, that gamer in question also pointed to the 4ed corebooks on my shelf as further evidence for my lack of respect for the rules. Wha--? Sure, I didn't like the system, but what did having the books have anything to do with how I run a NWOD game? Or even my Pathfinder game.
At the end of the day, don't we get together for some laughs and entertainment? To have fun? To enjoy each others company, and not the glow of a screen?
|
|
Go to Dragonsfoot, where 3rd edition is 'The Edition That Shall Not Be Named'.
Don't fool yourself into thinking greed and hate are on the rise. They've always been around.
Everything that is happening has happened before. The old always vilifies the new. That's just human nature.
Ancient philosophers decried books at the downfall of civilization, as man would have no reason to think for himself because it had all been done for him.
Radio, television, rock music, the internet, all have been decried as the impending doom of civilization. In a sense, they're right. Because the civilization before them changed, 'ending' in a sense. But that's life.
We do get together for entertainment and fun, enjoyment and laughter. That's never changed, regardless of the medium used.
Don't lose sight of reality by being blinded by your fears.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There might be a valid debate here if Rule 0 were not in the rulebook.
But it is.
AMiB is saying a lot of reasonable stuff about it being "the group's game", but the GM does retain the right to dismiss players as an authority at least.
Rule 0 is in the book. Whatever usefulness the "fallacy" is for the game's design, throwing out rule zero during play is actually a house rule!
my lawn my rules...No, it's not your lawn. The GM doesn't own the game and graciously allow the players to participate. It's everyone's game.
No. I own the books, the games take place at my house, you want me to GM it is my lawn. I'll be fair, but the players refer to the game I run as 'your game.'
None of this means I am not fair. Most important thing is players and GM have fun. If they cannot have fun the way I WANT to GM, guess who is out a GM? They are welcome to run the game THEY own however they want. The game I run however is MY GAME through and through.
@karkon
This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......
Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.
Perhaps I am misreading.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because one CAN change a thing, doesn't necessarily mean that one SHOULD change a thing.
My own experience is that those GMs that depend heavily on rule 0 are the ones that are too lazy to actually learn the rules. Yes, there are a lot of rules and it is not 100% possible to know all of them at all times, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at least make the effort.
Also from my experience, those GMs that rely on rule 0 a lot are also inconsistent even with themselves. One week a rule will work one way and the next it will work another way.
As for the attitude of "its my game" or "if you don't like my way, then hit the road". Great, I'm glad you have players that want to play in your game. I might just say, if you are gaming the same way as when you were 14 years old, then either you matured extremely early or haven't quite got there. Just because people might put up with your ...stuff, doesn't mean your ...stuff doesn't stink. My experience has been, that attitude is unnecessary. Most players are more than willing to have the GM call the rules decisions, so putting it up to vote as a GM has rarely meant the call hasn't gone the way I suggested anyway.
I find it funny how so many GMs have an attitude of "the players should trust in my judgement" but don't seem to have the same attitude towards them, i.e. "players will try to get away with anything to the detriment of the game".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@karkon
This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......
Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.
Perhaps I am misreading.
Wow.
So, we all know rule zero, yes?
It is in every, and I do mean every, RPG I've ever played, and I think that is true for you as well.
So imagine my disbelief when a player started to rant and rave about the 'fallacy' of rule zero. That any GM that doesn't go by the rules perfectly is an idiot.
And, to my surprise, it wasn't this one guy. There are many people out there that believe this.
I mean, what do you say to this?
Maybe this isn't asking for advice. Maybe this is just me being so shocked that there is even one player like this, I gotta vent to someone who will help me sort this out in my head.
Does anyone have anything to say to this?
I asked the player to leave. Am I in the wrong here?
I had a player like this. He would challenge and question any ruling I made that wasn't insanely in favour of the PCs. He would complain about any changes made to the rules by me (but oddly if those changes were made by the company making the game they were A-OK) even if the rest of the players agreed with my ruling.
I eventually got tired of him and stopped DMing, then playing, with him permanently.
SO no you weren't in the wrong here. Some people are just a!%*~!*s. At least it seems like you got ride of yours early!
I think people who tend to denounce Rule 0 have had a bad experience with GMs who abuse the concept -- for example, someone making a ruling that puts the GM in favor, then redacts the ruling when it might help the players.
If someone were to come up to me talking about how Rule 0 doesn't work, I'd ask them what happened that they felt this way. Then maybe from there prise apart misunderstanding from the original concept, if needed.
I'd also note that I have several unnumbered rules:
- The GM must do her best to be fair
- The GM must do her best to be consistent
- The GM DOES have the right to make a call on unclear rules, but also must inform the players about these calls.
- As long as the GM does her best at the above 3, the players should be equally expected to be cooperative and accept GM rulings.
- But when the GM has clearly made a mistake, players have the right to do so (and prove it).
Usually as all these things are followed, Rule 0 itself isn't a problem.
No True Scotsman?@karkon
This is.... this is..... stupid.... to say the least......
Karkon's post is actually the essence of GMing. I know nothing about you, but to reply this to that post indicates you do not GM games.
Perhaps I am misreading.
Actually the fallacy is misused there. It does not apply. See a post above from another member where it was indicated the 'fallacy' remark is thrown around here more than in philosophy class. it seems to be a flavor people like around here.
Karkon gave a list of situations. Another poster replies that the situations are not encountered/don't happen/other rules can handle or something.
It seems that if as a GM you have not encountered those situations you have not GM'd many games.
The fallacy applies no more than it would to saying "someone that has never encountered a traffic light probably does not drive."
These scenarios really come down to preferred play style and the amount at which a human being is willing to compromise his preferred play style as opposed to try to force his preferred play style onto a group.
I come from the "old school". That doesn't mean that I am intrinsically better than someone, it means I have played D&D or a derivitive of it since the 80s and I am fond of that playstyle. However, the internet will show you that if you say you like something that someone else does not, an argument can and will ensue about how you are somehow wrong for not adhering to the arguer's mindset and that you are in fact playing D&D wrong.
I learned years and years ago after having blow ups at my table that include a table flipping by a player whose character died, verbal assault and abuse of other players, and mantrums (those being adult men throwing temper tantrums) that the most important part of a gaming group is its synergy and to achieve the best possible synergy, you should have people gathered who are of the same mindset or at the very least compromising.
Some people just are not compromising at all, and when you do something they don't like, they will aggressively try to change that.
This is where the conflict comes in. If one is not compromising then the conflict appears, and the conflict causes stress, bad feelings, and then fear of it occuring again in the future.
I run a low-fantasy low-power campaign that asks of its players to put some time into it and not min/max. When you get a group that likes this or at the very least is accepting of this, the campaign is a ton of fun. When you put someone who vehemently doesn't like to write backgrounds, is an optimizer who feels cheated if they don't have high power, or anything that contradicts what the campaign is set up to be, you have a problem.
One can find many examples of this in these very forums, or on Wizards' Forums, or in any game forum really. There's a thread rolling where I stated I use a 10 point buy system and if the player writes a 1000 word bio they get a 15 point buy system, and all hell breaks loose about how I'm not playing D&D/PF correctly, and that I'm wrong/bad.
Rule 0 exists to keep the game flowing. Some games are more rail roady than others. Some players prefer rail roads. Others don't. If you have an issue with your gaming group, address it. If they are playing a way that you are having no fun with, leave the group and find or form a new one that does.
The problem with this thread is that there seems to be two different arguments here. The supporters of rule 0 believe that it is necessary for the GM to use to help adjudicate certain situations. To settle disputes.
The people who oppose rule 0 believe it is bad because GM's can use it to do awful terrible things that ruin the game and everyone's fun.
I'm fairly certain that everyone here agrees with both of those points. I don't believe there is a problem with the rule. There is only a problem with GameMasters that would abuse it.
In sports, the referee must make a call in situations that aren't perfectly clear on what to do. Sometimes the ref must make a hasty decision in order for the game to continue without slowing down. But if the referee were to start making rules up, well, it's safe to say he would quickly be fired. Same could be said for roleplaying games. If the GameMaster decided that out of nowhere the fighter's sword turned into jelly without a fair and logical reason, the table is going to get flipped.
Well, Rule Zero isn't a fallacy in the first place. "Fallacy" would imply a problem of logic in the structure of an argument. But Rule Zero is a rule, not an argument.
@Mournblade94: It is good to see you moderating your language. You had originally claimed that leo1925: "you do not GM games". Now you are saying it is more "probably do not GM games." That is certainly better, though I personally would avoid deciding who is likely and not likely to be a GM based on whether they agreed with me or not (a good GM or poor one on the other hand ...).
As for the post he was replying to. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but the poster in my view was trying to put the "Rule 0" stamp on every little thing a GM decided on. This comment especially stood out to me.
Why does an enemy wizard use haste instead of fireball? Rule 0.
If you want dilute the definition of Rule 0 to that point, then Rule 0 is meaningless.
Did the GM decide to wipe after going to the bathroom? Rule 0!I found the post ridiculous, others obvious found it meaningful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As the given example, it was not a rules as written discussion that occurred at my gaming table, but how literally one interprets them.
Also, the comment 'The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.' makes me wonder how antagonistic people get at the gaming table. Whatever happened to being nice and having common sense? I guess I came running to the forums because this player acted oddly at my gaming table; typically a rules discussion is just that; a discussion that occurs after the night's session is completed, typically over milk and my wife's freshly baked cookies. I saw someone else prays with their gaming group; while I'm not that faithful, that sounds more of the level of acceptance I think my gaming group typically has.
If this is the first time your player has thrown a tantrum, I suspect he's upset about something unrelated to gaming. Maybe he's had bad experiences with power-crazy DMs, maybe he really does disagree with your rule 0 ideas. But if it's his first time offense, there's probably something stressful in his life causing him to act up.
Or maybe he's just an obnoxious dweeb.
In answer to your original question, how about "Children break rules, adults follow rules, and leaders make their own rules."
@Mournblade94: It is good to see you moderating your language. You had originally claimed that leo1925: "you do not GM games". Now you are saying it is more "probably do not GM games." That is certainly better, though I personally would avoid deciding who is likely and not likely to be a GM based on whether they agreed with me or not (a good GM or poor one on the other hand ...).
As for the post he was replying to. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but the poster in my view was trying to put the "Rule 0" stamp on every little thing a GM decided on. This comment especially stood out to me.
Why does an enemy wizard use haste instead of fireball? Rule 0.If you want dilute the definition of Rule 0 to that point, then Rule 0 is meaningless.
Did the GM decide to wipe after going to the bathroom? Rule 0!
I found the post ridiculous, others obvious found it meaningful.
Fair Enough.
...the players in my experience who make these kind of complaints are either nitpickers, or players who are carping because their broken builds got shot out of the gate, their broken magic item was rejected, or just totally wired up with a sense of self-entitlement.
OR the GM is making mistakes, because she is a human being. Communication can solve that problem, with or without rule 0.
This only serves to validate the statement:
None of the above means diddly squat as long as the players and the GM are having fun.
There could also be a scenario where a player believes that something actually has a rule, a GM rules it different than expected, and the player gets upset because he believes he's changing the rules on him.
This happened to me at my table recently.
We've come to simply disagree, but it's my game at the moment so he's let me be, but not without the occasional snipe. The whole thing to me is just an unnecessary argument in the first place, but he says I was getting in the way of his fun. Furthermore, that I had changed my ruling because I let him do it before (never you mind how I could change my ruling on something covered in the rules). The other players don't seem to care, and mostly seem to back me up.
As a GM, I feel that I don't go out of my way to deter someone's fun, and try to make things interesting for the whole group. In this one case one player disagrees.
I've had another digression, earlier in the same game, that intentionally didn't bother with any rules, and everyone had a good time.
I'm not interested in taking any argument online or elsewhere, I just want to point out that a player might find Rule Zero to be the enemy. Said player has an investment in the rules. Those who are not as invested in the rules find Rule Zero to be just fine, and can actually help them have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me both sides of the argument on this issue are just worried about the erosion of their point of view and thus argue overzealously in order to make sure the 'public opinion' doesnt slip any further one way or the other. The reality is pretty much everyone here agrees, dms can make rules and rulings as they see fit but they should not abuse that privaledge.
I do however believe the sense of entitlement runs both ways, dms and players suffer from it, usually because the screen stays on one side of you. I think that is a pretty terrible mistake made by many gaming groups. If you want to be a good dm or a good player you should spend at least a handful of gaming sessions on the 'other side' every year, just to remind you of the other perspective. Sit too long on either side and the quality of your experience and those around you will drop.
The only thing I would actually argue against that has been stated in this thread is the 'supply and demand' theory or 'I have been dming x years and never had a shortage of play so obviously I am doing it right'. That is a pure fallacy. I have not played in your games ofcourse, so I have no idea if it is fun by mine or anyone else's standards, but the simple fact that there are people at it does not mean it is objectively a good game.
A starving man will eat dog food but that does not make it a good meal for him. If a player doesnt have another option(or thinks he doesnt have another option) he may stay with your game even if he is unhappy for the social aspect. The only game in town syndrom can happen in a gamming group even if you are not in fact the only game in town. Friendships, social restraints, schedules and the cliquish nature of our hobby can easily prevent people from seeking out new games even if they are present for the taking.
Again I dont know if your game is good or bad, it may be the best game ever run by anyone in history, but the simple fact that you have always had players does not mean it is a good game.
I removed some posts and replies to them. Be adults, please.
|
The Laws of D&D:
Rule -1: There isn't a game without players
Rule 0: The DM is always right.
Rule 1: The rules were written for a reason. Ignoring them wasn't it.
Take a game with 5 players and a DM.
One player leaves...the game can still continue.
The GM leaves.... the game is over.
Until one of the players realizes he or she could DM.
And what are the boards coming to when not only does Pax post without bashing 4e, but I also agree with him. Oh God, I'm about to favorite a Pax post.
The years are mellowing me. Glad you enjoyed the post. =)
The word "fallacy" gets thrown around here more often than the word "socialism" on Fox News. The "fallacy" fallacy.
There might be a valid debate here if Rule 0 were not in the rulebook.
But it is.
AMiB is saying a lot of reasonable stuff about it being "the group's game", but the GM does retain the right to dismiss players as an authority at least.
Rule 0 is in the book. Whatever usefulness the "fallacy" is for the game's design, throwing out rule zero during play is actually a house rule!
You know, this has NEVER actually come up in a game that I've run... people just all seem to go along with everything ok, then again we normally have group concensus on rules.