Pundy, save this post:

I predict that in 2010, once the full version of the new edition is out, we will all convert to Hackmaster.

As witness my hand, this 29th of May, 2008,

P.I.

Quote from: KrakaJakWhere are the statements to the contrary?

Page 110: "Remember, you are the creator and final arbiter of the game, not a rule, someone else's sense of realism, or any other outside factor."

Page 189: "If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights."

Quote from: KrakaJakI don't actually have a copy of the book...

Oh. Maybe you want to get one, or spend more time reading one, before you say unequivocal things like, "Back on topic, 'Rule 0' is not in the DMG," yeah?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityPundy, save this post:

I predict that in 2010, once the full version of the new edition is out, we will all convert to Hackmaster.

As witness my hand, this 29th of May, 2008,

P.I.

I'm pretty sure I'm converting to HM.  It's the anti-4e.

It seems that there are quotes in there that bolster both points of view.  On one hand they tell you that you get to decide what is fun and play accordingly.  On the other hand they tell you that encounters with city guards among other things are most definitley not fun.  So what happens if you think encounters with guards are fun?  Your brain explodes?

One critique is that they could have made things a lot more clear by replacing "you" with "the DM" in the following quotes.  

QuotePage 110: "Remember, you are the creator and final arbiter of the game, not a rule, someone else's sense of realism, or any other outside factor."

Page 189: "If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights."

"You" leaves it open to some player with a DMG saying they have the right to change the rules.  Is that a crock?  Yes, but simply saying "the DM" would have been definitive.

Really, if you look just at this conversation, it implies that this issue itself would have been worth a very carefully-worded sidebar. I'd find it a lot more useful than most of the sidebars in the book.

Quote from: wulfgar"You" leaves it open to some player with a DMG saying they have the right to change the rules.  Is that a crock?  Yes, but simply saying "the DM" would have been definitive.

It's interesting.  Aside from previous RPGs very few (any?) games allow any of the players to arbitrarily change the rules during play.  Judges / Referees often have a lot of latitude to make calls on things not covered by the rules, but not to arbitrarily change or ignore those rules during play.  The more rules, the less they need to make calls on things not in the rules... and vice versa.

Creating a game that has *lots* of rules, but allowing one or more of the players to change or ignore those rules at their discretion during play seems a bit... I don't know... badly designed or conceived or something.

Although this is in part tied into the "what is the point of the game" and "how do you win the game" questions that RPGs have traditionally mumbled their reply to while looking at the ground and kicking the dirt.  Truthfully, it's not even quite sure if it's a game or not.

A tactical minis game shouldn't have players changing the rules mid-game if the goal is beating the monsters in combat.  (Although the GM should then be more of another player -- and playing to win!)

A game where the goal is to tell great stories with interesting characters should have all sorts of different rules to it and ways of determining if you're winning or not.

Quote from: StuartIt's interesting.  Aside from previous RPGs very few (any?) games allow any of the players to arbitrarily change the rules during play.

Uh, dude. Calvinball. Duh.

Quote from: EngineUh, dude. Calvinball. Duh.

Exactly!

Aside from the fact that the DMG has an entire section on including house rules, and another advising the GM on how to incorporate player actions for which there is no rule precident, including doing things in combat for which there is no direct guidance (the specific example given is a Rogue swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest so as to knock him over - see pg.42), to opening chapter of the PHB discussing what an RPG is has this to say:

Quote from: PHB pg.8The Dungeon Master has several functions in the
game.

Adventure Builder: The DM creates adventures (or selects premade adventures) for you and the other players to play through.

Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome.

Monster Controller: The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains the player characters battle against, choosing their actions and rolling dice for their attacks.

Referee: When it's not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.

Now, the 'Referee' part doesn't say that the DM is lord and master of all he surveys, but it does suggest that he has the authority to interpret rules.

I think any game with a referee has them make rules interpretations.

The important distinction between most games (and by the sounds of it 4e) and previous RPGs which explicitly include a "Rule Zero" statement is that in those games it actually says the GM can disregard rules during play whenever they choose.

A house rule setup before play begins is not the same as changing a rule mid-play.

Quote from: StuartCreating a game that has *lots* of rules, but allowing one or more of the players to change or ignore those rules at their discretion during play seems a bit... I don't know... badly designed or conceived or something.

And yet 1st edition AD&D seemed somewhat successful, as far as RPGs go.

Quote from: jrientsAnd yet 1st edition AD&D seemed somewhat successful, as far as RPGs go.

Which is why it's so interesting.

It could be that AD&D was successful in spite of having a DM who would ignore rules at their discretion during play.  But I also think this relied on the appearance of the DM "following the rules".  It wouldn't work if the DM said "Yeah, I only rolled a 3... but I think I'm gonna have that Orc spear you anyway."

Maybe those rule systems were really unrelated to the *actual game* being played and whether the players were winning / losing that game.

It's probably no single thing, but a lot of different things -- including the time period and not having to compete with videogames for "virtual world" experiences.

It's also worth reiterating that many people were playing a game with a much reduced set of rules from all the ones presented in the AD&D rulebook.  Disregarding rules before the game begins isn't the same as suddenly doing so in play.

Quote from: jrientsAnd yet 1st edition AD&D seemed somewhat successful, as far as RPGs go.

And I should have said -- virtually all RPGs follow the model setup by Gary with OD&D to the point that they're mostly the same game.

Very few RPGs change that model without becoming something else (Storygame) or making mistakes with the overall approach (World of Synnibar).

Quote from: EnginePage 110: "Remember, you are the creator and final arbiter of the game, not a rule, someone else's sense of realism, or any other outside factor." [This appears, somewhat ridiculously, at the end of a section about realism, and how you shouldn't get too hung up about it.]

Page 189: "If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights." [The book then goes on to explain how to create random dungeons, which is so alien to my programming that I must pause and reset.]

Are these explicit enough to say that, yes, the game contains Rule 0?

I think they are. Thanks for posting those excerpts.

However, I still feel any DM who makes real-time improvisations by fiat is going to be swimming against the tide in today's D&D climate. Encouraging rules mastery and predictability from the POV of players is clearly a fundamental design goal.

My comment about "More rules" being at odds with "Referee makes a call" is probably based on having just read the Greg Ellis and Tim Kask exchange on Dragonsfoot:

Quote from: Greg EllisOne could argue that the extra detail baked into AD&D maybe isn't such a good thing; it seems to have encouraged a generation of players who enjoy fussing over the wording of the rulebook instead of deferring to their DM's judgement.

Quote from: Tim KaskYou win the prized Periapt of Perspicacity Award! Congratulations. We shot ourselves, altogether unknowingly, in the foot. We had no idea that we were corrupting the original players into a flock of nit-pickers and rules lawyers. It was our own fault, although I don't think any of us could have seen that far into the future and foreseen it.

I think if there are rules in a game, people's expectations are that those are the rules of the game.  Rule Zero clauses not withstanding. Even if you agree on only using some of those rules, people expect those are the rules the game operates by.  The fewer the rules, the more people are open to the referees (DMs) discretion.

If "Rule Zero" was really working well for a game, there wouldn't need to be any pretence of rolling behind the screen or fudging results.  The DM would just be able to say:  "I don't think that dice roll or this rule makes sense, or gives the result that I (as the DM) think should be happening.  I'm not going to follow it.  This is what happens instead."  And the players would accept it because he's the DM, and that's what he's supposed to do.

I don't think that happens much.  I can't speak for OD&D in the 70s, but I've never seen or heard of groups playing like that -- except in caricature.

I should mention -- I think AD&D is great and wouldn't want to see it change.  It works great for me, and since Rule Zero says "at my discretion"... well... that discretion is to not do that. :haw:

I'm more interested in whether it's a good or bad idea to have a "Rule Zero" for a game written in 2008.  Right now I think it's not necessary.  If you want more GM authority to ad lib -  have fewer rules.  If you want less GM authority - have more rules.