What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

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?


As a dm saying that you are invoking rule zero is a bad idea after the world and session has started. If you can justify it what you are invoking rule zero on that is a different story. To the player it might have sounded like " I am special so what I say goes". I have had players argue with me on rule zero but they usually accept it after I explain why I want something that way and If they wish to change what they were doing I let them


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules explicitly include rule zero.

In order to follow the rules exactly, you must use it.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
I mean, what do you say to this?

Quite easy: "No set of rules is complete, and there are cases where there are no rules. No set of rules is worded perfectly, and if we'd all go by the exact wording, the game can easily descend into a cheese run aka quest for loopholes. No set of rules will allow me, the GM, to always set up things the way I want, and I prefer being creative to having a law discussion. If you are absolutely hell-bent on a fully rigid set of rules, go play a computer role playing game."

Rule zero trumps all rules in the rulebook. If you don't agree, feel free to stick to Rule minus one: No one forces you to play at my table.


If they're their, they have implicitly agreed to trust your judgement about what will make the experience fun for all parties involved. As has been noted, rule Zero is literally a part of the rules, and it's supposed to trump them when the RAW break under the strain of simulating a lived experience (however fantastical).

So basically, I'd say there's a social contract. He sat at your table, so he's agreeing to trust your judgement. If he feels you haven't done that to such an extent that he can't be involved, the contract is broken.

But more importantly, it's not Congress, or nuclear fission - the rules are meant to be broken if they don't work and the need is great.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
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.

No, that's not it at all. GMs can and absolutely should adapt the rules to their game as needed.

The fallacy is the Oberoni fallacy. The Oberoni fallacy is that a broken rule is no less broken because the GM can fix it. It's only relevant when you're criticizing a badly-designed game, subsystem, or rule.

Midnight_Angel wrote:
If you don't agree, feel free to stick to Rule minus one: No one forces you to play at my table.

The flipside of this rule is that powertripping GMs only get to play with themselves, mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my games, we sit down and even though we have all played together before, we always go over the house rules. And first and foremost, "GM has final word over everything."

We're a close-knit group of friends though, so we don't have much arguments other than some discussion.

And then we pray :) Then game on! (breaking only when pizza and wings arrive)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

rule 0 is probably the only rule I 100% know, understand and apply.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem seems to be more culture. like not respecting your elders, talking back to your parents, drinking from the milk jug etc. Seems youths today in general (not including everyone)just feel there entitled to everything. seems many today have there own opinions and no matter what is clear in writing if they don't agree with it the book is wrong, stupid, or my favorite "like ...whatever." I remember first getting into RPG, the DM was god and players didn't even have access to the rules. What the DM said was law. you didn't like it- to bad, shut up and leave. I was a player and those days i actually HAD THE MOST FUN. you didn't have wasted time arguing rules and the game moved along smoothly. Now if a GM invokes rule 0 it's almost guaranteed your losing at least 15 minutes of game time.

I try to compile a list of homerules, but this is our first PF campaign. so, homerules are getting established as we play. I've had players try to argue but i've politely held my ground that this is basically a play test and if they don't want to participate they can leave. Not only has no one left but from player word of mouth i have 5-7 people who want to play now.

Players seem to shape up real quick when they realize there dispensable. I keep one player spot open to rotate in "temp" players or an NPC if no one can fill in that night. I think every GM should do this if possible, it lets the players know if there going to be a problem george, bob, or tom is always willing to get a full time spot. I don't baby my players and i let them know this is my campaign, but everyone's game. They don't have to obey all my rulings, there free to leave anytime. I'm not obligated to GM for them, they dont pay me to GM. Rules zero helps me maintain some sanity and keep the game moving when i need it to.

Dark Archive

Oof!

It didn't even start with Pathfinder (though his rant got there) but it started with Vampire: The Requiem, and me saying that I didn't enjoy the long holding on of emotions...yatta yatta. Heck, I was opening it for discussion, when out of the blue, he flips, starts going into the fallacy of rule zero...suddenly, it became a freak out about the economics of my Pathfinder games...*eyes roll*


A Man In Black wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:
If you don't agree, feel free to stick to Rule minus one: No one forces you to play at my table.
The flipside of this rule is that powertripping GMs only get to play with themselves, mind.

Oh, I am perfectly aware of this. This having been said, I had only two players walking away from my table as a result in the last 25 years.

I see it as laws of supply and demand. I offer GMing a group for a campaign, a one-shot, whatever; system XXX (needn't be d20), setting YYY. Details are available on request.
If the demand (the player's wishes) don't match... well; seems that player will not be playing with me for that scenario. If I don't get enough players, my offer obviously wasn't good enough.

Once the game is running, my job is to keep everyone having fun. Yes, this includes myself. Discussing the fine print of a rule in the midst of an action packed scene usually doesn't match my idea of having fun. Neither does it for most of my players.

If you think I did something wrong (forgot a bonus, couldn't see you, etc), ask. Briefly. I will gladly rectify immediate mistakes on my part. I will not retcon a combat round. And i will not discuss rules during an action scene, period.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnight_Angel wrote:

If the demand (the player's wishes) don't match... well; seems that player will not be playing with me for that scenario. If I don't get enough players, my offer obviously wasn't good enough.

RunebladeX wrote:
Players seem to shape up real quick when they realize there dispensable.

These are both examples of an obnoxious and sadly common attitude. The relationship between the GM and player should be a give and take. Being the GM doesn't give you the right to tell people "My way or the highway." Sometimes, it's necessary to tell a problem player that, but telling someone to get lost just because they had a somewhat different idea about a rule or a different idea about what sort of game to play is over the line.

RunebladeX wrote:
The problem seems to be more culture. like not respecting your elders, talking back to your parents, drinking from the milk jug etc. Seems youths today in general (not including everyone)just feel there entitled to everything.

DAMN YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!


A Man In Black wrote:
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
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.

No, that's not it at all. GMs can and absolutely should adapt the rules to their game as needed.

The fallacy is the Oberoni fallacy. The Oberoni fallacy is that a broken rule is no less broken because the GM can fix it. It's only relevant when you're criticizing a badly-designed game, subsystem, or rule.

Midnight_Angel wrote:
If you don't agree, feel free to stick to Rule minus one: No one forces you to play at my table.
The flipside of this rule is that powertripping GMs only get to play with themselves, mind.

I disagree completely. I have NEVER had a shortage of players in my 16+ years of gaming, and i live in a town of only 22k people. My players would probably consider me an ironfisted powertripping GM. I've never had anyone quit because of my GM style either, i've had threats and called there bluff. IS it best to have homerules in writing? yes. Will the book and homerules cover everything that could possibly happen in a game? hardly. when i make a call i will take opinions, but when my mind is set-thats it moving on. after that the player gets the choice to move on one way or the other. I think my style is why my players are so loyal. while im sure i make calls that piss them off at times, in the long run i do provide cohesion. They have learned to rely on me that if a rule is vague i will make a decision and keep the game moving. when the rules break down or situations arise i quickly make calls to keep the unverse from imploding. while they may be unhappy in some instances at times,by the end of the night everyone had a fun gaming night and comes back for more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) If the GM never uses the term "Rule Zero," then the players have nothing to complain about.
2) "Fallacy" (yawn) is a word that is used more by 3.x/PF players than undergraduate philosophy students.
3) Rule Zero is the only rule.


A Man In Black wrote:
Midnight_Angel wrote:

If the demand (the player's wishes) don't match... well; seems that player will not be playing with me for that scenario. If I don't get enough players, my offer obviously wasn't good enough.

RunebladeX wrote:
Players seem to shape up real quick when they realize there dispensable.

These are both examples of an obnoxious and sadly common attitude. The relationship between the GM and player should be a give and take. Being the GM doesn't give you the right to tell people "My way or the highway."

RunebladeX wrote:
The problem seems to be more culture. like not respecting your elders, talking back to your parents, drinking from the milk jug etc. Seems youths today in general (not including everyone)just feel there entitled to everything.
DAMN YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

lol no not quite. It's more like " sure kids you can play in my yard, just dont trample my wifes flowers, dump garbage on it, and dont piss in my bushes! If you do you can leave and play in someone else's lawn. ;) my lawn my rules...


A Man In Black wrote:
These are both examples of an obnoxious and sadly common attitude. The relationship between the GM and player should be a give and take. Being the GM doesn't give you the right to tell people "My way or the highway."

*shrugs* If this is the way you want to see it, go ahead. Like I wrote, it's my job as a GM to ensure that everyone at the table is having fun. Barring that, I strive for the majority of the people having fun.

I am a firm believer in the credo 'Not everyone has to play everything'.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RunebladeX wrote:
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.


A Man In Black wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:
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.

<redacted statement>


First of all AMIB is correct the rule zero fallacy is when you claim that a system (feat, spell, the entire system) isn't broken (doesn't work properly) because the DM can fix it.
(man that discussion brings me back memories of my days playing exalted)

Well on topic now:
I have no problems with house rules as long as they are laid down before the game starts, don't change during the game on the whim of the DM and if the DM discovers something that needs/wants changed during the game (this shouldn't happen often but it may happen) then it should allow all players affected by the change a re-do of their characters.


A Man In Black wrote:
It's everyone's game.

Yes. The GM being the arbiter between the scenario and the players. Question: Do you also like to argue with the referee at sports?

leo1925 wrote:
I have no problems with house rules as long as they are laid down before the game starts, don't change during the game on the whim of the DM and if the DM discovers something that needs/wants changed during the game (this shouldn't happen often but it may happen) then it should allow all players affected by the change a re-do of their characters.

Of course. Changing things in mid-game, or worse, ruling the same effect differently on a whim should be avoided at all costs. And, of course, if some houserule affects a player, it is only fair to allow him to change his character (within reason).

A player should be able to rely on rule stability. What he shouldn't rely on is the battle cry 'RAW is LAW'.


I would just like to add that the title of this thread: "What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero?" is ambiguous.

When I first read it, I thought that Goblins Eighty-five was implying that Rule Zero is a fallacy, and he wanted to know what to say to those who condone Rule Zero.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnight_Angel wrote:
Yes. The GM being the arbiter between the scenario and the players. Question: Do you also like to argue with the referee at sports?

Question: Have you stopped asking questions with assumed premises? GMs are referees, coaches, managers, most of the stadium, and the entire opposing team. Some of those are fair game for arguing.

Obviously, arguing about rules interpretation in the middle of a combat or scene is obnoxious, just let the GM make the call there. But the GM should not be the arbiter of what sort of game the group will play (and should not be an ironfisted powertripper in any event!) unless everyone's okay with that. Accommodating players' desires and playstyles is what separates okay GMs from excellent ones, and just saying, "Play my way or get lost" means you're forever celebrating your own mediocrity.


Ehh, I notice that a lot of the people who argue against rule 0 are people who play multi-player/competitive game modes.

All of the worst anti-rule 0ers I have encountered (myself included, I'll be honest) tend to have the problem with rule 0 because they set up a "build", like they would in any mmo/multiplayer/competitive game, and resent it being shut down by a gm often, for reasons that aren't as clear cut as the GM thought when he made it (for instance "The rogue sneak attacking is OP"), now a lot of us grow out of it or learn to compromise but some don't, and see it as one their favourite parts (aka making the awesome concept) being marginilised.

I've found the simplest way to counter this is to be well informed, and to set up house rules as much as poissble before hand rather than brining them in mid game, then simply state that in any areas of un-certainty a snap decsion will be made, until after game when we can determine the "correct" ruling.

Please don't bring any Stormwind fallacy into this, one of my players favourite things is too come up with a crazy outlandish concept for a character, background and everything, then he enjoys spending ages trying to make it as effective as poissble. That's something he enjoys, almost as much as the actual playing the game, and he can get very snappy when a house rule he doesn't agree with shuts down all the time and effort he put into it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, that post got away from me a little but my acutal point here is, rule 0 is an important rule, no-one denys that, but it can lead to people feeling victimised if it isn't handled carefully. With great power... yadda yadda. Try too look at things from your players perspectives, no-one likes having the rules changed from what they expected without warning.


NeverNever wrote:
Well, that post got away from me a little but my acutal point here is, rule 0 is an important rule, no-one denys that, but it can lead to people feeling victimised if it isn't handled carefully. With great power... yadda yadda. Try too look at things from your players perspectives, no-one likes having the rules changed from what they expected without warning.

Well, if there isn't enough trust between players and GM in the first place; if any player feels he'd be victimized by the GM having the final say... let's just say that I wouldn't want to play in this kind of group.

I must admit, I find the spreading 'Group vs GM' attitude... disturbing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It isn't about trust, it can be something as simple as a player interpreting or stumbling onto something the GM hadn't noticed, and I'll be very honest if these forums have shown me anything, it's that a lot of people have knee jerk reactions without bothering to see if it's actually valid.

I'm just saying don't bust out rule 0 in the middle of a game just because some-one found something you consider strong and expect them to be perfectly fine with the apparent decision too target that person over everyone else, try talking it out instead of being a dictator.

Shadow Lodge

A Man In Black wrote:
Accommodating players' desires and playstyles is what separates okay GMs from excellent ones, and just saying, "Play my way or get lost" means you're forever celebrating your own mediocrity.

The same goes for a player who would leave a group simple because the GM doesn't bend to his every request.

Dark Archive

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
I mean, what do you say to this?

"Go find another table/group/game, thank you."

No you are not wrong, at all.

Incidentally, it's the same thing I'd say to a DM that routinely abuses rule 0.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:
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.

Actually in my campaign it's EXACTLY like that. We all play but it's my campaign. I provide and bought all the books, game aids, adventures, miniatures, painted them all. Physically it IS my game lol. The GM is the director. In a movie it's not the actors movie, it's the directors. Maybe in your campaign thats how it is but not mine. I suspect if all GM's ran there games like yours, and im not saying it's wrong or bad, many GM's would get walked all over. And i see more of this issue on the boards more recently- players thinking the GM has to spend all his free time catering to the players.

You can say im rude, or obnoxious, or a strait up D&%K, but this style works for me and my group(s). I tell my players strait from the start this is how it's going to be. Anyone, including myself is free to leave at anytime afterwards. Do I invoke rule 0 a lot? No, usually the rules are pretty clear cut. I try to explain, when in conflict,why rule is such and such. i have an ex GM and a well ruled player who backs me up 90% of the time. I don't purposely try to make rulings to be a powercreep or to screw over players but sometimes players are in error. I've allowed takeback actions when they weren't aware of how a rule actually worked. And yes sometimes i even make the wrong call,but i acknowledge it and i correct it- extra XP, hero points, treasure etc. but i keep the game moving.

I also agree that a GM and player is a give take relationship. i never said other wise. but you can do this and still have control of the rules- as a GM should. In my case i am the GM and as such i can invoke rule 0- except it. There are houserules for a reason, there are times when situations comes up and it was realized that "hey this isn't so clear cut, this is how im going to rule it and so becomes a houserule." so it's not ALWAYS feasible to always have every possible housrule discovered before a campaign starts. I direct the flow of the game, i take the rulings and story. The players get given a little by choosing the THEME or FLAVOR. That's how it balances out and i keep players happy overall and keep them coming back year after year.

The kingmaker campaign I'm running now the players wanted higher stats so we used an alternate rolling method. They are Monty's so they have high fantasy treasure and items. I wanted to use the slow progression as it was our first switch to PF, so they could progress slowly and feel out there abilities and learn the rules,and they HATED this idea. As a consolation prize i told them i would throw in even more treasure by upping them to average progression treasure,throw in sidequests and adventures to give even more loot and campaign time, and give the option of custom magic items and spells. from the start they were aware that if i made a ruling that's how it was going to be. BUT they have characters with super stats and about double to triple the WPL. In the end as a GM it's my obligation to keep the game moving, and to make quick calls to get the most out of our play time. You can have all the goodies you want as that doesn't effect the game flow. If my style is wrong we will keep playing it the wrong way :D


NeverNever wrote:
Well, that post got away from me a little but my acutal point here is, rule 0 is an important rule, no-one denys that, but it can lead to people feeling victimised if it isn't handled carefully. With great power... yadda yadda. Try too look at things from your players perspectives, no-one likes having the rules changed from what they expected without warning.

No it's not an important rule, it's a waste of printed space and ink and that's because it isn't needed, and it isn't needed because in organized play it can't be used and in home games it would be used even if it wasn't there.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In pathfinder rule 0 is in the rulebook if they cannot abide that they are breaking the rules, just like an illegal build or RAGELANCEPOUNCE (lol inflammatory). That rule exists, and as a matter of courtesy and good gamesmanship it is to be respected.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
leo1925 wrote:
NeverNever wrote:
Well, that post got away from me a little but my acutal point here is, rule 0 is an important rule, no-one denys that, but it can lead to people feeling victimised if it isn't handled carefully. With great power... yadda yadda. Try too look at things from your players perspectives, no-one likes having the rules changed from what they expected without warning.
No it's not an important rule, it's a waste of printed space and ink and that's because it isn't needed, and it isn't needed because in organized play it can't be used and in home games it would be used even if it wasn't there.

It is constantly used in organized play. Every time a scenario says someone is rich or someone is king you are using Rule 0. Well that is just fluff you might say. No it is not. Being rich means you have more money, more gold pieces. Gold pieces are a game effect. If an NPC is rich then they have more than the wealth by level for NPCs say they should have. Why? Rule 0. All the things that NPCs make in the game world but the DM never rolls. Rule 0. When you walk into a shop and ask for a sword. The DM says sure there is a selection of swords. Rule 0.

Why does an enemy wizard use haste instead of fireball? Rule 0.

Hop on over to the World of RAW thread to really see why Rule 0 is needed to make the game world work.

Every time the rules fall a little short...Rule 0. If the DM lets you get away with something not in the rules....Rule 0. If the DM bends the rules in your favor. Rule 0. The DM has to run the whole damn universe. In some games he also creates it.

Rule 0 lets you solve some problems that RAW does not cover or even need to cover. Makes it easy on everyone.


A Man In Black wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:
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.

But as GM he reserves the right to invoke rule zero. My group

understands this when ever one of us GM's we know that certain rules may be a little different.

If you want someone to GM then you follow his rules, if you do not like the rules then offer to GM in his or her place, that or find a new group.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

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?

I don't have to say ANYTHING to it. Players are always free to leave if they refuse to give me proper deferment as a DM. I suspect that you'll find that the folks spouting such nonsense are munchkins fond of using RAW to twist, bend, and break RAI. If such munchkins have problems with the way I run a PFS table they are free to complain to the convention coordinator for the event.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
[These are both examples of an obnoxious and sadly common attitude. The relationship between the GM and player should be a give and take. Being the GM doesn't give you the right to tell people "My way or the highway."

Actually yes it does. When you're the one who does 95 percent of the donkey work involved in setting up, creating, and running a campaign world, it should entitle you to a generous degree of deferment. A table can always get by without any single player. But a campaign doesn't exist without a GM.

Now it doesn't mean that it's a license to be an ass as a GM. But saying that a GM's role is no more important than a player is entitlement attitude to the extreme.


Rule 0 is there to fill the gaps and keep the flow going.

That said, I have been slapped with rule 0 more times than I care to recount, often in direct violation to other VERY clear rules, so the GM gets away with his railroading.

I invoked my "rule 0... patience for d1cks."

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've had a lot of experience observing this phenomenon, both in-game, at the table, and in real life.

A couple of things could be at play here:
>Too much sugar - honestly this can cause a "flip out"
>Low blood sugar - this can cause a "flip out"
>Player is unhappy with their own life, and when their fantasy world doesn't match their own view of it, this can cause a "flip out"
>High blood pressure - this can cause a "flip out"
>Jealousy - players who "were" the guru-of-the-game years ago, suddenly play at a relatively modern game table i.e. old skool versus new skool - this can cause a "flip out"

The OPs topic is multi-faceted, based on his subsequent posts - he suggests that a) the player might have strong (perhaps extreme) "gamist/simulationist" tendencies and prefers to be in control and has trouble submitting to rule zero b) player has a different game-universe-philosophy than the gm (a fundamental disagreement) c) he also "flips-out" in this case over the economics (see the OPs later post). These are, to me, 3 issues.

What I'm suggesting is that there are a few variables, when combined, that I've observed to cause a "flip out". Here's just a few examples:

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 kill them. Suddenly, he "flips-out", ranting about horses, and how the GM or the players could never ride a horse that hard/long without hurting them, how they don't understand horses, or somesuch about his vast knowledge of animals. This bothers other players, arguments between "just let it go - the GM says so" and "no, horses can't do that" occurs. Any attempts at this point to discuss GM handwaiving for expediency are not heard. Now, this player cannot seem to reconcile the ambiguity any more. His world view of the game was that the GM was absolute, yet by contrast he entered a gamist-simulationist session where the players were very empowered by the open ruleset of Pathfinder RPG, and while he silently spent the game trying to get along, now his blood pressure, his desire for control, and his lack of the competency with "dealing with ambiguity" has gotten the better of him, and his arrogance is displayed because he is trying to regain some sense of control over his own game views which he cannot reconcile. At this point, he threatens to leave, and regardless of whether he does or not, the social aspect of the game is broken, and the other players, or the GM, really doesn't wish to put up with this kind of crap.

So to answer the OPs question - its pretty existential really - if he's a friend, work with him, talk with him, work it out. If not, and you can move on without him, then you weren't wrong to boot him from the game. Ultimately, and unfortunately, in the scenario above, despite Mike's excellent roleplay ability and years of experience, he simply wasn't compatible with the group, and after displaying these recurring episodes of "flip out" over silly-s~#+ a few times, when he finally threatened to quit, the GM said, "maybe that's for the best."

Context is king here; long term-home-campaigns should be protected from ruin by players, but informal one-off games at hobbystores are probably worth just dealing with the player until the sesion is over. It likely matters how well you know the player, and care. Input from the group is always worth soliciting. Using diplomacy, neutral language, and tact are always valuable, regardless of the situation. How the GM handles these situations matter, because players are watching. Be even handed, but firm, be open minded, but protect the campaign first, the story second, and the player comfort third, although all are important.

Ultimately, as the GM, remember to protect your hobby and sense of fun in playing - its a lot of hard work to run games weekly for example, and you must do what it takes to ensure you don't burn out over "flip out" instances like you describe. In conclusion, awareness that a number of factors can cause "flip out", such as the one you mentioned. Mostly, players are well-intentioned, and some suffer from syndromes or other social deficiencies that are the hubris of their character. I try, whenever possible to look past these things, see the good in players, and accomodate as much as reasonable. But nobody deserves yelling, or shouting, or "flipping out" beacuse its a game, and is meant to be fun.


Midnight_Angel wrote:
NeverNever wrote:


...

I must admit, I find the spreading 'Group vs GM' attitude... disturbing.

I've known several players and GMs that held the 'Group vs GM' as the one true way to play RPGs. That's not my style, but it is out there and is a valid way to play. In my experience most of these players/GMs are long time players of RPGs and not the newer ones. Where I play I usually see that 'old school' gaming usually involves 'Group vs GM', but YMMV.


I'm an old-school player and DM, and have participated in gaming on both sides of the table since 1977. So that's where my perspective is going to come from on this.

There are good players and there are bad players.
There are good DMs and there are bad DMs.

There are people who prefer rules-tight games.
There are people who prefer rules-loose games.

There are people who prefer finely-tuned adventures on rails.
There are people who prefer open sandbox style play.

Regardless of any of that...the game is THE DMS GAME. The DM has gone through the effort of organizing, writing, preparing, and getting the adventure together. At the end of the day, the game is his/hers. Players are simply participants in the game.

That being said, the DM should ensure expectations are set at the beginning. "This is a magic-light campaign, you will not be able to buy magic items. XP advancement is slow. And character race and class selection is limited.". In addition, if the DM intends to make any structural changes to the RAW, that information needs to be communicated up front. "Here are my changes in the way Acrobatics works".

If players have questions or don't like the rules, they can respectfully ask for clarification or adjustment on the rules. But they should never argue with the DM. They are free to leave the game if they don't like it.

My campaigns are story and character based. I have plotlines that I intend for the characters to follow, but I do allow varying levels of deep sandbox play depending on the campaign I'm running. My players have great freedom to do as they will and control their own fates. My campaigns tend to last for years of real-time, and they're in-depth and engaging for all. One of the reasons for the length of game campaigns, the player retention, and the overall success is that I do not allow dissent at the table. If a player feels that I've ruled incorrectly on any given rules interpretation, they can make their case and we'll discuss it. The discussion will be brief and I'll give my ruling. Once I've done so, there is no further discussion. That's it. Tough but fair, ultimately I'm the final arbiter. I do my best to remain consistent and unbiased in my interpretations.

There are many bad things a DM can do that will ruin the game and take the fun out of it for everyone. Being arbitrary with random rulings. Being inconsistent and making contradictory rulings. Not properly communicating "why" a ruling goes a certain way. Not listening to the players when they give feedback and questions. Not controlling disruptive players. Being unfair and stacking the deck against the players. Being perceived as the enemy rather than the facilitator of the game. Not being prepared. Not having a thorough understanding of the rules. But with all that...at the end of the day, it's still the DM's game. Even if they are a bad one. If you don't like it, don't play.

When I play in other games and a DM rules incorrectly to my way of thinking, I'll respectfully bring up the question and lay out my logic in a brief and succinct fashion. I'll ask for clarification. If the DM does not budge, then I'll let it go. If enough of those situations occur and I realize that the DM style and type of game that is being run is not for me. I'll finish the session then pull the DM aside privately at the end and simply state that the campaign is not for me and that I won't be attending future sessions. I won't be insulting, I won't be aggressive, and I won't place blame. Even if they're a bad DM who has no clue what they're doing, I won't attack them or be disruptive or derail the game. It's the DM's game for better or for worse, and they get to make the call in their own game.

As a player, you play or you don't play. A campaign is NOT a democracy, you don't get a vote, and you don't get to have your way. If you don't like it, don't play.

Liberty's Edge

I can see it both ways actually.

If players build their characters on a certain assumptions and then the DM uses rule 0 to destroy those assumptions then what's the point.

Example: One of my friends once volunteered to run a DnD game. I played, as I always do (on the rare times I actually get to play), a wizard. DM brought in rule 0 and surrounded the whole world (as far as I could tell) with a "green mist" which totally counteracted magic. ALL magic. Guess who will never DM a game for me again?

On the other hand, there are an immense amount of rules and no one can be expected to know every rule all the time. When rule 0 is used to keep the game flowing, or to improve the flow of the game (by altering things that don't work properly) then it results in a better game.

What it comes down to is if players and the DM trust one another and realize they're all working together to have fun, rule 0 isn't a problem. If there exists (in the minds of the players or the mind of the DM) a players vs. DM attitude, then rule 0 isn't fun for the players.

Finally, just because its tangentially related one of the best explanations of Rule 0 I've ever seen was in Mekton Zeta talking about "Creating totally unbalanced, godlike aliens." It went: "Whatever you want them to do, they do. Isn't being referee wonderful?"

Grand Lodge

I make it clear from the very beginning that I will make spot rulings to cover any rules issues that come up during play and that ruling IS THE LAW. It is not open for discussion nor negotiation at that time.

When the game is over and we are winding down and doing bookkeeping THEN we can discuss the issue and if necessary house-rule it. If the general consensus is that I got it wrong or that someone got the short end of the stick then I will make amends. I'm willing to discus issues and come to a workable solution that everyone can agree on but not in the middle of the game.

The only time I've ever had an issue with this is when someone was trying to pull a "I WIN DnD HOW COOL AM I!!1!" stunt and blew a fuse when either the rules didn't work the way they wanted them to OR I simply refused to let one player ruin the game for everyone else.

When I was running 3.5 I had very little time to game and I wasn't about to waste actual game time on rules discussions.

SM

Sovereign Court

@blackpawn - one of the neat things about communcation and the evenhanded diplomacy involved in accepting input from all players, as well as avoiding the "antagonistic GM" style, is that everyone at the table feels like equals. This is a modern gaming concept.

I have been just as successful with campaigns lasting 3.5 years, and most recently 6 years with 100% attendance weekly for all those years, yet I've done this without invoking any rule zero.

I find this like an orchestra blasting is double-forte (ff); once you invoke those kind of spoken fiat rules, you can go no higher, and while the players realize they're ruled by an iron fist, I propose that this is NOT the only way to run a table.

In fact, the very best GMs, as suggested by some of the original descriptions of "Dungeonmaster" are ones who will always make the players believe they can do anything, that they are equals, and that everyone contributes to an evening's session of gaming.

I guess its two paths to achieving the same thing imho.

What's important for folks to hear, is that while GMs such as you will say, "its the GMs game, period," and GMs such as I will suggest its a collaborative, shared experience in which GMs without players a game does not make.

The more modern views of gaming can take the same principles of GM as final arbiter and yet put a greater majority of all the rules in front of players. By contrast, old-skool games were great and easier to run in some respects because the game worked really well when the players were in the dark about the rules. The GM was more mysterious, more easily perceived as the absolute authority, when folks didn't really understand all that was going on.

In a modern sense, those of us who've been playing for 28-35 years, realize that we don't necessarily need the mystery in order to be a great GM. The game still works when the players understand all the details. For examples, traps might be a bit less mysterious when the players can see all the contruction types, DCs, and damage effects right within the Pathfinder RPG Core Rule Book. To me, this says the nature of information amongst ALL participants, including the GM has changed.

To meet the advent of players having all the rules in front of them, in some ways this takes a little burden off the GM, but also places a new burden upon him/her. How do we run amazing games when much of the basic and intermediate inherent mystery is gone. Afterall that was a key imaginative element of old games? The answer is, find new mysteries within the context of the rules, while ensuring the players understand that dealing with ambiguity is still a competency that must be demonstrated by players.

Almost every gamer will say they expect the game to be "internally-consistent", and most software designers and anyone who makes anything work would understand that. But, as the glue that ties stories together, or when faced with the pressures of limited time to play, or other factors, even the internal consistency AND the rules of the game can be "broken" by the GM. In fact, we absoultely agree on this point - that even when the GM is so-called "breaking rules" he/she really isn't.

When folks say, the GM IS the Game, they're absolutely right. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the players nor the GM need invoke this kind of language nor obvious knowledge to everyone. That's where, I believe, in a modern sense, the GM still owns the game, and is not really limited by anything, EXCEPT the fact that a non-antagonistic GM is often preferred in most games of 2011.

To achieve this balance between being the god of the game, and still maintaining a healthy, fun, play environment - I believe its not necessary for the GM to invoke "rule 0" or any obvious statement that "its my way or the highway." This is where I respectfully depart from your view, as well as my old-skool friend of many years.

I understand that the game works fine when GM is the kind of tyrant you describe; I ask that you consider that the game works just as effectively when its done in a way differently from yours.

In fact, I am a player still in my tyrant friend's game. Its fun, I show up, its fast, and smooth due to some blatant hand-waiving.

The thing is, I DO understand where players are coming from about the rules, but I think their conclusions about this constituting a "player v. DM" environ is not necessarily the only assessment. Like you, the fact that GM is THE supreme authority is a principle I still agree with - its what makes the game work. But HOW this is achieved can actually play out differently for different groups.

Some examples:

Antagonistic GM, with too much DM Fiat
GM: A green vapor surrounds you, as you feel your arcane abilities slipping from your memory. You begin forgetting how to cast spells.
Player: WTF. What level spell is that. I roll spellcraft to determine the spell being cast.
GM: This happens to you, and you lose your spell power and cannot make any checks.
Player: This sucks.

Old Skool GM, with a healthy understanding of modern games
GM: A green vapor surrounds you, as you feel your arcane abilities slipping from your memory. You begin forgetting how to cast spells.
Player: WTF. What level spell is that? I roll spellcraft to determine the spell being cast.
GM: Roll 1d20 plus your spellcraft bonus or knowledge arcana, whichever is higher.
Player: Okay. Um... woah. 20+9=29
GM: Great! You've heard of the Jade Miasma, a high level spell once used to surpress powerful senators in the Mage Court of the 2nd Dynasty. You're surprised to see the ancient arcana still in practice. You do know this was never used as a permanent effect, but done as a precaution to senate debates to avoid magic from influencing decisions. Make a perception check.
Player: Okay. Um... aw! 6+8=14
GM: Unfortunately, you cannot identify how this spell has reached you, but you do notice a glow from beyond the archway ahead.
Player: I go investigate some more. But... can I still cast spells now?
GM: No, all knowlege of your memorized spells has left you.

Non-Antagonistic GM with NO Fiat whatsoever
GM: A green haze forms before you. Roll for initiative.
Player: 18+4=22
GM: Woah, lucky! You're up. What do you do?
Player: Can I roll spell craft to determine more about the green vapor?
GM: Sure. Are you moving toward it?
Player: No. I use a move action to move away from it 30 feet.
GM: Its moving slowly toward you. Your knowledge of spells recalls the Jade Miasma, a high level spell once used to surpress powerful senators in the Mage Court of the 2nd Dynasty. You're surprised to see the ancient arcana still in practice. You do know this was never used as a permanent effect, but done as a precaution to senate debates to avoid magic from influencing decisions. Make a perception check.
Player: Okay. Um... aw! 6+8=14
GM: Unfortunately, you cannot identify how this spell has reached you, but you do notice a glow from beyond the archway ahead.
Player: I move quickly to avoid the miasma, and go investigate the glow in the next room. But... can I still cast spells now?
GM: Yes. You seem to have been quick enough to dodge its effect, but its moving about 15 feet per round.
Player: Ok. I act quickly then and double move to the next room.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

house rules should be voted on.
players votes are worth 1
the vote for the dm is worth 2
dm breaks ties.


Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:


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?

Does anyone have anything to say to this?

I asked the player to leave. Am I in the wrong here?

I'd ask him to leave.

And bring back gifts of reese's peanut butter cups, Pepsi Throwback with pure cane sugar, Pringles, and bacon for him to fry for my sammiching on.


ShadowcatX wrote:

If players build their characters on a certain assumptions and then the DM uses rule 0 to destroy those assumptions then what's the point.

Example: One of my friends once volunteered to run a DnD game. I played, as I always do (on the rare times I actually get to play), a wizard. DM brought in rule 0 and surrounded the whole world (as far as I could tell) with a "green mist" which totally counteracted magic. ALL magic. Guess who will never DM a game for me again?

I can see possible conflict in this situation coming from one of two very different sources.

Possibility One:

PLAYER: I'm going to play a wizard.
DM: That's not a good idea; I'm planning to do X (green mist), and a wizard will be totally crippled.
PLAYER: HOW CAN YOU DO THIS TO ME? YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! RAW SAYS (rant rant rant)...

In this case, the player is being a d-bag.

Possibility Two:
PLAYER: I'm going to make a wizard.
DM: OK
(Player goes on to create his wizards character, including stats, backstory, planned advances, etc.)
(Game begins) DM: This whole world is surrounded by a green mist which counters all magic.
PLAYER: WTF?
DM: Hey, Rule 0, man.

In this case, the DM is being a d-bag.

Maybe Rule 0 should just be "Don't be a d#*k."

I realize there are groups out there that have fun with the "DM vs. group" mentality, and it's a valid paradigm for playing the game, but if I wanted to play a game that way, I'd whip out Descent, where it's a codified part of the rules.

1 to 50 of 92 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What to say to the believers of the fallacy of Rule Zero? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.