Want to see what people do with the oft-overlooked Rule 0: that the DM is the final arbiter of rules, period. He can change, make up, and remove any rule at any time.
Like any great power (of which being a DM is one of the greatest), you must exercise responsibility.
Responsibility means not abusing it to screw with your players or advance your own agenda. Responsibility means making any changes to rules 1+ very clear and staying consistent. Responsibility means working with your players if they want you to change or allow something, or if you want to change something. Responsibility means going back every so often to ask, "is the change I made too powerful? Do I need to change it again?"
It's the most important rule, and is in fact RAW according to the Core Book.
A lot of people forget about it. I just wrote a rant over in some mystic theurge thread. Some poor soul was asking how to play a theurge...90% of the posts boiled down to "MYSTIC THEURGE SUX DONT TAKE IT." A better solution is for him to work with his DM to make changes so it is less underpowered, to not make it overpowered, and to monitor any balance issues that may arise on an ongoing basis.
So...not just related to the topic of mystic theurges...what do other DMs and players have to say about this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say you can't always expect a GM to change something just because, and when asking for advice on what class to take (like Mystic Theurge) people shouldn't give advice based on IF the GM MIGHT buff the class for them.
We regard it as the overarching rule - the rest are all optional. If something's in a rule book (even the CRB) it may not exist or might work very differently, depending on the DM.
We don't care about balance or consistency very much though.
1. I will call the DM out if I am only informed of a rule change when I try to use an ability that gets changed because of the ability. Often, this is because I wouldn't have taken that ability (usually a feat or spell) if I had known that it wouldn't work the way I thought it did.
2. I will DEFINITELY call a DM out if they keep changing the same rules for different encounters. In fact, this is something that's sure to piss me off. If the players are too powerful, don't change their abilities. Make the monsters tougher. Once a PC has earned an ability, making that ability weaker is going to make that player feel like he wasted his time.
This!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At our table the first rule we vetoed was rule 0. There is no rule 0. Rules changes are decided by the table, not by the gm. Of course, we're a table full of gms, so really it is the gm making all the rule changes... Its just a lot of them. Everyone has the power to make a suggestion. Nobody has the unilateral power to make the change.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule that supersedes even rule 0, is rule -1
Rule zero: what the DM says goes, often called the "rocks fall, party dies" rule
Rule negative one: if the players aren't having fun nobody wins, the players can always leave.
That said the dm's job is in part to never have situation where rule negative one comes up, in my experience rule negative one has come up all of one time, and it was the younger brother of the DM, he just up and left
I thought rule zero was never split the party and rule 1 and 2 were always have rope? Guess I forgot since that stuff died with 2nd edition.
>Ah so< sensei , my old edition fu is weak!
|
|
I got started on 2e back when i was 17, i died sooo many times, I've died all of one time in pathfinder, and it allowed my party to live as I used my caster to hold off a barberan and a caster that could go incorporeal (they were in the same space) the party fighter carried the unconcious gunslinger and he and the ranger ran off as the caster held them off (he was a magus but still)
I've only played for a few years but I've been obsessed, anyway back to the discussion
|
I like to follow Rule 0 when it's a deliberate choice and not an omission or misuse of other rules. I can ignore any rule I want, but I need a reason to do so beyond "just because.
I can break any rule I want at my table and my players would go along with it because I have earned their trust. They know I'm going to play fair and not set out to screw them without reason. They might argue -mostly to be sure I know the rules- but will stop if I make a firm decision. Because of trust.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM, I always used rule zero as a means for controlling NPCs more than anything else. That includes all the outsiders that are summoned, certain aspects of animal companions, certain specs of cohorts etc. I applied alignment and the creatures social norms to the effect of spells like charm to determine how they responded to casters.
I used it to control what was and wasn't available in a game to help control the power of classes with potential to have everything available to them.
I used it as a means to adjust certain weaknesses that a group would occasionally develop as a campaign progressed organically.
I used it to create magic items and magical effects or extraordinary or supernatural effects in ruins or bases that sometimes couldn't be created by the rules. I wave that off as lost tech, or magic beyond ten ability of the party, or stuff requiring ritual or architectural abilities and teamwork not available etc. in other words I used rule zero to allow me as GM to ensure a story got told in interesting ways that myself and my players enjoyed even though sometimes there were no rules to support that idea.
I also used rule zero to modify the dc's in areas to represent more or less difficult situations. It meant in my games the static dc's in the books could change, and the changes made sense when you understood why they'd been adjusted.
In other words, I used rule zero to run a game that was based on the guidelines of pathfinder but I was happy to bend or ignore rules to better progress a story arc or challenge my friends as I needed. Most of the time it was to empower my players and their characters, but occasionally it was to reign in power creep or mistakes in house rules we'd made early in the campaign but not though through enough for later campaign.
Of course, I kept it consistent within the world I was running, so players could learn about the world and adjust as they did so.
Nowadays, I don't DM much. No time nor energy really. I'm playing with the same group and another DM who does a great job too. He also rule 0's occasionally to make things work. The cool thing is we've all been playing so long that many of the house rules that popped up s a consequence of rule 0 are now ingrained in all of us and we love how it works.
The only one I take to a new group without consultation though, is my rule on healing potions. Healing potions give end max bonus they can to make them actually worth the gold investment and the loss of action to take them. Eg, cure light becomes d8+5 for the cat of 50 gold. Everything else gets thrown to a new group for discussion, at least until we've all learned to trust each other enough to kow decisions being made aren't about power creep or being a tosser.
Cheers
Edit, iPad auto correct has done some things in there sorry. Hopefully I got them all in edit, but if not sorry.
The rule that supersedes even rule 0, is rule -1
Rule zero: what the DM says goes, often called the "rocks fall, party dies" rule
Rule negative one: if the players aren't having fun nobody wins, the players can always leave.
That said the dm's job is in part to never have situation where rule negative one comes up, in my experience rule negative one has come up all of one time, and it was the younger brother of the DM, he just up and left
I don't know if the definition of "Rule Zero" changed over time, or geographically, or if we just had it "wrong", but we always said, "Rule Zero: Have fun!"
|
|
The rule that supersedes even rule 0, is rule -1
Rule zero: what the DM says goes, often called the "rocks fall, party dies" rule
Rule negative one: if the players aren't having fun nobody wins, the players can always leave.
That said the dm's job is in part to never have situation where rule negative one comes up, in my experience rule negative one has come up all of one time, and it was the younger brother of the DM, he just up and leftI don't know if the definition of "Rule Zero" changed over time, or geographically, or if we just had it "wrong", but we always said, "Rule Zero: Have fun!"
ah but read on, that's rule negative one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think any GM that has to call out "Rule Zero" has failed. Period. If a GM is doing their part/role correctly then the players are having a good time and the game is going well. There is not need to remind the players about "Rule Zero".
Want to see what people do with the oft-overlooked Rule 0: that the DM is the final arbiter of rules, period. He can change, make up, and remove any rule at any time.
Like any great power (of which being a DM is one of the greatest), you must exercise responsibility.
Responsibility means not abusing it to screw with your players or advance your own agenda. Responsibility means making any changes to rules 1+ very clear and staying consistent. Responsibility means working with your players if they want you to change or allow something, or if you want to change something. Responsibility means going back every so often to ask, "is the change I made too powerful? Do I need to change it again?"
It's the most important rule, and is in fact RAW according to the Core Book.
A lot of people forget about it. I just wrote a rant over in some mystic theurge thread. Some poor soul was asking how to play a theurge...90% of the posts boiled down to "MYSTIC THEURGE SUX DONT TAKE IT." A better solution is for him to work with his DM to make changes so it is less underpowered, to not make it overpowered, and to monitor any balance issues that may arise on an ongoing basis.
So...not just related to the topic of mystic theurges...what do other DMs and players have to say about this?
I agree with what you are trying to say, but I generally try to make rules changes between sessions since I hate to be caught off guard. If a rules change invalidates a character concept or how it works mechanically I allow the player to adjust the character or make a new one if it is really going to be an issue.
Now when I am on the boards I try to leave my personal GM'ing style out of it so I normally use "what the book says" as part of my speech, but at the table I am more lenient. I want the players to have fun, and if that means ignoring certain parts of the rules or allowing a 3rd party feat to help shore a character up then so be it.
Rule 0 is not RAW however. It is the power to ignore RAW and RAI to make your game suit your group. Rule 0 can't change what is printed in the book, and what is in the book is RAW. If the book says you must wear a blue shirt to get a +1 bonus, and the GM says you must wear a red shirt the RAW is still calling for a blue shirt, but the GM's rule for his table can still say red.
|
|
I am of the opinion that Rule 0 should only be used if a change would enhance the group's enjoyment of the game. Since Pathfinder is a solidly designed system, once again in my opinion, I have seldom invoked it. When I do, however, I communicate the change as coherently as possible, give my reasons, and listen to feedback from players before making such a change permanent. I also prescribe to Rule 1 and Rule 2:
#1: The GM is always right.
#2: If the GM is ever wrong, refer to #1.
:-D
I use whitelists for character options as it fits the setting. That means there is a (usually relatively short) list of classes, races, and equipment that are available for PCs (which is almost always identical to what NPCs will have). With feats and spells, I usually go CRB only.
Shield bonuses are added to a characters touch AC, but not to the flat-footed DC. That simply is not how a shield works.
Bronze weapons work just like iron and steel weapons and bronze is not considered a special material. Having bronze weapons break after an averagte use of 1 minute is just silly.
A lance is idenitical to a longspear, but it requires the martial weapon proficiency feat to use it one handed for double damage on a mounted charge without the -4 nonproficiency penalty. (Similar to how a bastard sword is also a two-handed martial weapon.)
Detect magic does detect auras from active supernatural abilities (with the CL being equal to the creatures HD). The wording of the spell is very poor, but there is much stronger evidence for it in the d20 SRD, that for some reason was not copied to the CRB with the rest of the description of Supernatural Abilities.
Unless the players really want to play a Planescape campaign or a group of paladins and evil-destroying clerics, there is no Alignment. Allegiance is a much better way to define PC and NPC priorities.
@carn: In Japan, there is the almost forgotten sport of "swimming in full armor". The speeds and distances these guys manage are not great, but it does work with sufficient training.
And here I was expecting this to be an empty thread, all past experience in messageboards notwithstanding O_o
I tend to follow Rule 0 with a handful of caveats:
1. I will call the DM out if I am only informed of a rule change when I try to use an ability that gets changed because of the ability. Often, this is because I wouldn't have taken that ability (usually a feat or spell) if I had known that it wouldn't work the way I thought it did.
As a DM, I do endeavor to state rules changes as I discover something I don't like. I also talk to my players when they level up, so I know what spells, PrCs, feats, etc they want to take, so I can look at them and tell them of any changes.2. I will DEFINITELY call a DM out if they keep changing the same rules for different encounters. In fact, this is something that's sure to piss me off. If the players are too powerful, don't change their abilities. Make the monsters tougher. Once a PC has earned an ability, making that ability weaker is going to make that player feel like he wasted his time.
As an exception, if they say "Hey, I want to try this and see if it works, so we're doing it this way for now. I might change it again if it doesn't work," then change it later, I'll usually be okay. I don't mind on-the-fly playtesting of house rules.Basically, yes, the DM CAN change a rule whenever he feels like it. But if he's not consistent about it, or if I feel like he's using Rule 0 to screw me over, I'm not going to be happy. At the very least, I want to know when my abilities are changed BEFORE I've locked them into place.
Yes, absolutely. I have a minor quibble with what you say about PC abilities...sometimes a given PC ability can get out of hand and turn into a major power imbalance. This happened to me exactly once (it involved something that worked fine at lower levels, but at upper levels basically let the rogue, who is something of a munchkin, apply sneak attack damage twice for every time he got a sneak attack in...), and really there was no way to fix this short of just quadrupling monster hit points. I basically told him, "OK, this isn't working, let's try [insert modified rule here]." He wasn't too happy about it but he did recognize that it had gotten ridiculous. Now he can still get some utility out of the changed ability, and he no longer one-shots everything all the time.
However, in this case it was my fault for not thinking the proposed rule change through sufficiently. I completely agree that ideally such things would never happen, and in practice, except for that one time, that's how I've done things.
I also admit that I occasionally do things inconsistently. Usually this is because we had a situation where the rules were open to interpretation, and we decided a house rule for it...then the same situation comes back months later when I've forgotten about it, and I rule something different.
e_e
My players are always happy to remind me, though :)
I have to say you can't always expect a GM to change something just because, and when asking for advice on what class to take (like Mystic Theurge) people shouldn't give advice based on IF the GM MIGHT buff the class for them.
Sure, but if everyone on the message boards says Mystic Theurge is underpowered, and one of my players thinks so, and I agree...well, that's what DMs are for, isn't it?
At our table the first rule we vetoed was rule 0. There is no rule 0. Rules changes are decided by the table, not by the gm. Of course, we're a table full of gms, so really it is the gm making all the rule changes... Its just a lot of them. Everyone has the power to make a suggestion. Nobody has the unilateral power to make the change.
I believe that this would work with a group such as you describe. However, the groups I've DMed have always needed someone to lay down the law. Not in a totally despotic way - but sometimes, rules discussions don't go anywhere and it's more fun for everyone if the DM just says "yes, you can hide inside an ally's lungs in gaseous form, but they have to hold their breath." [Wow, I need to remember that idea.]
The rule that supersedes even rule 0, is rule -1
Rule zero: what the DM says goes, often called the "rocks fall, party dies" rule
Rule negative one: if the players aren't having fun nobody wins, the players can always leave.
That said the dm's job is in part to never have situation where rule negative one comes up, in my experience rule negative one has come up all of one time, and it was the younger brother of the DM, he just up and left
This is also completely true.
I like to follow Rule 0 when it's a deliberate choice and not an omission or misuse of other rules. I can ignore any rule I want, but I need a reason to do so beyond "just because.
I can break any rule I want at my table and my players would go along with it because I have earned their trust. They know I'm going to play fair and not set out to screw them without reason. They might argue -mostly to be sure I know the rules- but will stop if I make a firm decision. Because of trust.
Exactly!
I think any GM that has to call out "Rule Zero" has failed. Period. If a GM is doing their part/role correctly then the players are having a good time and the game is going well. There is not need to remind the players about "Rule Zero".
...but part of the DM's role is to arbitrate the rules. I agree that shouting out "Rule 0! Discussion over!" is probably a good way to lose your players, but...it sounds like you're claiming that the DM should house rule anything. Don't agree with that.
I agree with what you are trying to say, but I generally try to make rules changes between sessions since I hate to be caught off guard. If a rules change invalidates a character concept or how it works mechanically I allow the player to adjust the character or make a new one if it is really going to be an issue.
Now when I am on the boards I try to leave my personal GM'ing style out of it so I normally use "what the book says" as part of my speech, but at the table I am more lenient. I want the players to have fun, and if that means ignoring certain parts of the rules or allowing a 3rd party feat to help shore a character up then so be it.
Rule 0 is not RAW however. It is the power to ignore RAW and RAI to make your game suit your group. Rule 0 can't change what is printed in the book, and what is in the book is RAW. If the book says you must wear a blue shirt to get a +1 bonus, and the GM says you must wear a red shirt the RAW is still calling for a blue shirt, but the GM's rule for his table can still say red.
I also agree with what you are trying to say :)
The only thing I disagree with is that it isn't RAW...although that's probably up to your interpretation of exactly what "RAW" means. >> Like I originally said, the motivation for posting this thread originally was having read several mystic theurge threads where, out of like 5 pages of threads, I saw very few posts that wasn't some version of "MT sux, you can't play it." (Most of the ones not saying that were advising not to use, for example, a sorcerer because of their delayed spell progression, which I think is perfectly reasonable advice.) If someone in my party wants to play a theurge (or if I want to make a theurge villain, and would rather tweak the class than just add an extra level to make up for a perceived weakness), my response is to fix the problem, so to speak. I think a lot of people who started those MT threads asking for advice on how to play the class best could have used a few responses like that. Don't get me wrong, though, I do love the rules (although there are a few things in some of the second-tier products like Ultimate Magic, etc., that probably could have used a little more playtesting).
For me that rule always meant heavy armor sucked, because my DMs had the crazy notion that hiking in full plate for 8 hours through standard wilderness left you exhausted close to collapse and that swim rolls are superflous because drowning in heavy armor is guranteed, and night encounters were always dangerous, because sleeping in leather according to my DMs is so horrible uncomforting that nobody would ever do it.
Thanks 3.0 for at least partly adressing these problems, which seem to be overlooker in practically any system.
This is an example of what not to do with Rule 0, unless of course you're in a setting where that makes sense. It also seems like your DM needed to do more research. Heavy armor is heavy, but not to the point that you're totally useless in it - as long as you have the training, which the rules take care of. Also, if I was sleeping in goblin-infested mountains, I would sure as hell wear my leather armor regardless of how uncomfortable it might be :P
I use whitelists for character options as it fits the setting. That means there is a (usually relatively short) list of classes, races, and equipment that are available for PCs (which is almost always identical to what NPCs will have). With feats and spells, I usually go CRB only.
I have a similar practice. I actually think this is a great idea. One difference is that I do use the Alignment system, and the item at the top of my whitelist is that PCs either have to be good-aligned, or have to be played by someone I've played with and known for long enough to really trust them. There are some players that can handle intra-party friction, like a paladin butting heads with the CN rogue. And then there are some players that...can't. I have found that restricting the players in this one detail leaves them a humongous amount of freedom and that it's totally worth it. I'm a lot more relaxed about this during a one-shot or short, low-stakes adventure, but for an extended campaign it's really important for people and PCs to be compatible.
That rule also provides a great way to reign in certain players. I, uh, once played with this one "lawful neutral" warlock who really liked...executing...everyone. At a certain point that kind of behavior does veer into non-lawful-neutral territory. Having everyone on the same page from the beginning about out-of-game alignment expectations makes it a lot easier to enforce related alignment stuff in game.
But anyway. :)
[previews post]
Sorry about the wall of text ><
I also agree with what you are trying to say :)
The only thing I disagree with is that it isn't RAW...although that's probably up to your interpretation of exactly what "RAW" means. >> Like I originally said, the motivation for posting this thread originally was having read several mystic theurge threads where, out of like 5 pages of threads, I saw very few posts that wasn't some version of "MT sux, you can't play it." (Most of the ones not saying that were advising not to use, for example, a sorcerer because of their delayed spell progression, which I think is perfectly reasonable advice.) If someone in my party wants to play a theurge (or if I want to make a theurge villain, and would rather tweak the class than just add an extra level to make up for a perceived weakness), my response is to fix the problem, so to speak. I think a lot of people who started those MT threads asking for advice on how to play the class best could have used a few responses like that. Don't get me wrong, though, I do love the rules (although there are a few things in some of the second-tier products like Ultimate Magic, etc., that probably could have used a little more playtesting).
No GM dictates RAW unless he gets to write in the rulebooks, and I mean the printed words. RAW does not mean whatever rule the GM comes up with. It refers to the actual book itself. That is the common definition for all of us.
I think when you say RAW you mean the final decision, but it is better if all of use the same definition.
I generally think Rule Zero should be used two times:
1. As a pre-determined list of house rules, campaign settings, and such. Allowed lists of races, classes, any banned feats or spells, etc.
2. When a situation comes up that the rules don't cover at all, or are ambiguous and can be read two (or more) ways.
|
|
I generally think Rule Zero should be used two times:
1. As a pre-determined list of house rules, campaign settings, and such. Allowed lists of races, classes, any banned feats or spells, etc.
2. When a situation comes up that the rules don't cover at all, or are ambiguous and can be read two (or more) ways.
So by twice you mean thousands of times thorugh a series of campaigns. (at least category two will end up like that.)
One of the reasons I love PFS play is because Rule 0 was involved overmuch, in my opinion, at the other game. In PFS play, "Rule 0" can get bounced back to "Rule VO" -- referring the situation to local Venture Officers. I'm quite happy to see how games are with the local PFS group that we don't have issues like that.
Rule 0 only works so long as you can keep players at your table. If enough people get tired of GM Fiat, you end up GM'ing at chairs. What kind of fun is that?
Rule As Written (RAW) I think is what you guys are saying... I'm painfully new here. :( The problem I had at the other table was having to play the game of "GM May I" for, it seemed, every little thing. And in my case, I kept getting told 'no' even though it was in the books I *thought* were being used, while other people were able to get the super-duper stuff. The stuff I asked for, while written in the same books he was using, was stuff some other dude I've never met used it to upset the DM so he wouldn't allow that. Or he felt it was too much, or this thing, or that thing. There was always some excuse why "Rule As Written" seemed never something to apply in my favor towards my character build.
PFS has been very, very good at solving that problem for me. Unfortunately for the other group, the other group doesn't care for PFS. PFS is "Too restrictive." I wasn't supposed to ask questions like "upon whom?" or "compared to what?"
Rule 0, I suppose.
I mainly dm. i mainly change rules by myself in two cases:
The rule does not make sense at all but we didnt know it until it came up.
New rules are needed for encounters and plots the characters dont know anything about (basically custom content like new monsters etc - cant tell the players beforehand ive houseruled in a dreamtravelling demon or the plot will be exposed).
All other houserulds are decided by the group by consensus method or majority vote, and in the case of undiscovered broken rules that needs a judgement call right away we disxuss it afterwards to come up with a good houserule.
"But it started to be broken about..."
I'm just trying to learn the game, and I have to trust that Paizo is trying to be reasonable with their rules so you have a relatively smooth progression, and broken situations are resolved. The game needs to be fun and all, but if Rule 0 has to keep being invoked to keep it fun, then at least one of the following is true:
1) Paizo isn't doing their job and Pathfinder needs to be traded out for a better system
2) Paizo has not found/ fixed the ongoing problem or adequately tested a rules change before putting it in place
3) Maybe the specific group is 'broken' and needs to find another game, because what they are looking for isn't Pathfinder, it's some other thing.
Rule 0 is for things broken in the system, and if it's broken, and/ or the players, GM are broken, somewhere some fixin' needs to be going on.
|
|
For the 'Rule 0 is not RAW', I present to you...
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game.
Now you could argue that this phrase is only flavor text. But I obviously wouldn't agree.
As for the "Rule 0 means you failed", well... DUH! If everything was going swimmingly, then where's the impetus for changes? Humans frequently fail, being imperfect and all. But since everyone does it from time to time, it winds up being perfectly okay. Particularly in regards to leisure activities as opposed to, say, heart surgery.
Sorry, but that one ruffles my feathers.
For the 'Rule 0 is not RAW', I present to you...
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game.Now you could argue that this phrase is only flavor text. But I obviously wouldn't agree.
As for the "Rule 0 means you failed", well... DUH! If everything was going swimmingly, then where's the impetus for changes? Humans frequently fail, being imperfect and all. But since everyone does it from time to time, it winds up being perfectly okay. Particularly in regards to leisure activities as opposed to, say, heart surgery.
Sorry, but that one ruffles my feathers.
Well Rule 0 is still not RAW.
RAW=printed words in a book from the publisher.
Rule 0=GM Fiat=the GM has the final say and what they say goes=the GM can ignore RAW and do what he wants.
Rule 0 is stronger than RAW, but it can never be RAW.
edit:Nobody here said it was flavor text.
You have tobe very careful with that, because some things making no sense at all gave great balance effects.
The rule does not make sense at all but we didnt know it until it came up.
In some cases that would be true, and I wouldn't make a ruling if the players where fine with the RAW.
However, we'd probably rule that a horse cannot climb a rope, and noone would object to that - verisimillitude is more important to us than marginal balance issues (we usually solve balance issues out of game instead). We rarely have mounted characters so that hasn't come up.
But in a case such as that we usually just make a quick ruling, or I make a ruling if not everyone thinks the same way, and then we discuss it and make a proper house rule (that might be different than my ruling) after the game.
We're pretty lax with the rules and have quite a bunch of house rules, constantly testing new ones and dropping those we don't like. And the players are in on this - two of them finds it interesting to do and we discuss rules together and the three others pretty much trust us to do a decent job with it, only saying no if they believe it's a bad rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the general perception of rule 0 is actually not what rule 0 is. Rule 0 in its entirety:
The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Even on page 402 it goes on to say how GMs should give rulings that are fair and to even reward players if the ruling was in the wrong. This means that GMs can be wrong!
It's pretty easy. When the rules don't make sense, or make things slow and lacking in fun, then Rule 0 is implemented.
For the 'Rule 0 is not RAW', I present to you...
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game.Now you could argue that this phrase is only flavor text. But I obviously wouldn't agree.
As for the "Rule 0 means you failed", well... DUH! If everything was going swimmingly, then where's the impetus for changes? Humans frequently fail, being imperfect and all. But since everyone does it from time to time, it winds up being perfectly okay. Particularly in regards to leisure activities as opposed to, say, heart surgery.
Sorry, but that one ruffles my feathers.
Well Rule 0 is still not RAW.
RAW=printed words in a book from the publisher.
Rule 0=GM Fiat=the GM has the final say and what they say goes=the GM can ignore RAW and do what he wants.
Rule 0 is stronger than RAW, but it can never be RAW.
edit:Nobody here said it was flavor text.
Isn't it a rule? Isn't it written?
It seems to me it's a qualitatively different rule from most (and can lead to obvious contradiction) but is still a written, official rule.
Well Rule 0 is still not RAW.
RAW=printed words in a book from the publisher.
Clarify for me. Are you saying the page number I referenced is...
Not printed?
Not words?
Not in a book?
Not from the publisher (Paizo)?
Rule 0 is not RAW does not mean Rule 0 does not exist. I think you got confused with what myself and the other poster were saying.
What I mean is that any modification a GM makes to the rules=Rule 0, but that modification does not equal RAW.
As an example lets say page 7 says all fighters have to wear blue shirts, and the GM says all fighters have to wear red shirts. Well since Rule 0 allows a GM to adjust the rules for his table he is within his rights to require a red shirt, but RAW(printed words) are still that the shirts should be blue.
So which takes precedence?
Rule 0 trumps RAW because the GM always has the final say. I also gave a similar example earlier in the thread.
For the 'Rule 0 is not RAW', I present to you...
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game.Now you could argue that this phrase is only flavor text. But I obviously wouldn't agree.
As for the "Rule 0 means you failed", well... DUH! If everything was going swimmingly, then where's the impetus for changes? Humans frequently fail, being imperfect and all. But since everyone does it from time to time, it winds up being perfectly okay. Particularly in regards to leisure activities as opposed to, say, heart surgery.
Sorry, but that one ruffles my feathers.
Well Rule 0 is still not RAW.
RAW=printed words in a book from the publisher.
Rule 0=GM Fiat=the GM has the final say and what they say goes=the GM can ignore RAW and do what he wants.
Rule 0 is stronger than RAW, but it can never be RAW.
edit:Nobody here said it was flavor text.
Isn't it a rule? Isn't it written?
It seems to me it's a qualitatively different rule from most (and can lead to obvious contradiction) but is still a written, official rule.
I see the confusion now. I am not saying Rule 0 is not permitted.
Another poster tried to say that if a GM changed a rule, his new rule is now RAW, but his new rule is not in any book. What is in the book is his ability to change the rules.
Wraith is getting all semantic on us with this. The ability for the GM to arbitrarily make a ruling is "RAW". It's written into the rules.
The actual specific ruling the GM makes itself is not "RAW" it is GM fiat.
Wraith is getting all semantic on us with this. The ability for the GM to arbitrarily make a ruling is "RAW". It's written into the rules.
The actual specific ruling the GM makes itself is not "RAW" it is GM fiat.
That is not semantic. That is actually how it(AD's description) works. If it is not literally written in the book then it is not RAW.
A better solution is for him to work with his DM to make changes so it is less underpowered, to not make it overpowered, and to monitor any balance issues that may arise on an ongoing basis.
That is always a good answer, but the "it sucks" answer also applies since the GM might not be that lenient, or may not have the time to make changes, and the class does suck.
Due to varying opinions they now know the class sucks, but he can also ask for a GM to help him out. Otherwise the GM helps him out, he goes ot another group, with a GM that won't help, and he might be lost as to why the class is suffering.
For the 'Rule 0 is not RAW', I present to you...
GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game.Now you could argue that this phrase is only flavor text. But I obviously wouldn't agree.
As for the "Rule 0 means you failed", well... DUH! If everything was going swimmingly, then where's the impetus for changes? Humans frequently fail, being imperfect and all. But since everyone does it from time to time, it winds up being perfectly okay. Particularly in regards to leisure activities as opposed to, say, heart surgery.
Sorry, but that one ruffles my feathers.
Well Rule 0 is still not RAW.
RAW=printed words in a book from the publisher.
Rule 0=GM Fiat=the GM has the final say and what they say goes=the GM can ignore RAW and do what he wants.
Rule 0 is stronger than RAW, but it can never be RAW.
edit:Nobody here said it was flavor text.
Isn't it a rule? Isn't it written?
It seems to me it's a qualitatively different rule from most (and can lead to obvious contradiction) but is still a written, official rule.
I see the confusion now. I am not saying Rule 0 is not permitted.
Another poster tried to say that if a GM changed a rule, his new rule is now RAW, but his new rule is not in any book. What is in the book is his ability to change the rules.
Ah, I see. That makes sense. Cheers.