@Zachiel Good luck with that. That would be an example of emotional bias - and probably linked to a bad experience with a game that kept changing on somebody else whim.
@Zachiel I think there might be a misunderstanding. It's possible that his argument is that stating Rule 0 is a necessary evil, because there are people who would demand that the book be followed at all times otherwise.
it's much easier to find one person you trust not to screw you and make them the GM than it is to find a group that can agree on how to resolve rules disputes without bogging things down
@Zachiel That means you're going to have to up your character creation minigame skills to their level - or get some help from them in achieving your mechanical aims.
sandbox (at least, as i conceive it) means that there is no pre-planned story, and when thats the case how can your choices NOT matter? they're the only thing the DM has to go on
That means more risk. You get more satisfaction out of a risky battle, but due to the nature of randomized rolls, you aren't guaranteed to win them all. Then the DM determines the results, whether to fudge it or dice as rolled.
a) There are plenty of ways for a GM to fudge an accidentally overpowered fight without actually fudging rules or mechanics; I once recovered just by provoking extra opportunity attacks. b) @ObliviousSage is right; in most D&D-type games, PC death is a risk that *must* exist in order for a challenge to be felt. The only way around this is to provide non-death risks. D&D doesn't support this innately, and it takes a creative GM to make it work.
@Zachiel My last game of WFRP had a player ask for the ability to take spells without the wizard career. He gave a good reason and an interesting background that made for interesting stories - so he got some new rules just for him. That's a plus for Rule 0.
Based on what little I've been reading so far, I'm not sure you can get the experience you want out of any role playing group/game that I am familiar with.
Zachiel, that's mandatory in any role-playing game. Rules can't cover infinite possibilities, so the rules have to be able to change during play. You need one person in charge of those rules changes so that the game doesn't turn into "argue about the rules for the next 3 hours".
When you sit down to play most RPGs, you surrender some degree of control to the person running the game. They are your (semi-random) event generator. And nine times out of ten, they have a particular story they want to tell or at least a particular challenge they want you to solve.
which is "anyone is able to get what they want from the GM without using the rules of the game as long as he manages keeping the social pressure on him high enough but without him exploding"
I think "Rule 0" is a ridiculous holdover that unintentionally enforces one of the most toxic elements of the old-school RPGs: the "us vs them" attitude that puts a social split between the GM and the players. It does this by placing the GM in a position to arbitrarily destroy the rules that the RPG social contract is based on, shattering trust.
@oblivionsage unless you design rules that cover the entire gamma of possibilities (example: if none of the previous apply, chose randomly between the players, the winner decides)
@Zachiel: except then you have to trust everyone at the table to act in the interest of the group having fun, rather than just the GM; it makes social contract issues worse
@Zachiel Many groups decide, as mine has, that the GM can be the final arbiter of a decision during a session in order move things along, and a more permanent ruling will be arrived at out of session.
@BESW I'm firmly of the opinion that those decisions should be recorded and kept as evidence of house rules so that new players can be brought up to speed on your changes.
@Zachiel It's still there - it's just much less necessary (one of the big reasons I prefer it over 3.x).
@Zachiel Old, bad and outdated advice. GMing is not a job.
You are all supposed to be having fun. You shouldn't be marking time doing the same old things again and again like you were playing World of Warcraft.
Popping in to say: When I'm back, I will have a dismantling of Rule 0 and why it means well but conflates too many different goals to effectively achieve any of them.
I'm not sure what else I can say. Sounds like you're unhappy with the game and your group dynamics. I had this problem a few years ago and I simply quit DMing for the following year.
You can dissect the rules and examine group politics all day, but the bottom line here is it does not sound like you are having fun equal to the amount of work you put in.
I'm not saying it's not enjoyable. People can have fun with it. But they should stop looking at whoever's not having fun telling them it's their or their DM's fault
@Zachiel For you. You might like the rules to be exactly like they are in the book - but not everyone does. I mostly do, but I don't mind houserules if they are clear and upfront.
if you don't like how a group does things, and the group doesn't want to change, there's no shame in leaving the group; it doesn't say anything bad about you or the group (in most cases; some people are genuinely disfunctional)
@ObliviousSage An here's the problem. I'm the one that wants to play more. And being the GM at D&D 3.0 is better than being alone at home which is in turn better of losing every single game at DotA2
which is what my group would like me to do when I don't DM
@MadMAxJr If you're making the same kind of judgment calls repeatedly - then that's a house rule. It doesn't have to be on the scale of replacing the grappling rules!
@MadMAxJr what does an explosion do to cavern walls? Not in the manual---> you decide. You just made an home rule. Hope your players don't exploit that in a situation where it makes no sense but could win them a battle
You are saying that your only options are "Run D&D 3.0", "Stay at home alone", "Lose at DotA 2". Those are not your only options (but they may well be the only ones you are willing to consider).
For instance, Carolina is planning to run a L5R campaign, right? Is she local to you? That's another option.
But there are still other hobbies that you could take up to expand your horizons (instrument lessons, cooking classes, dancing, running clubs). It's worth trying many different things to see what pings.
If I stop being the DM, nobody wants to be. At least one of the player doesn't want to play any other RPG. The rest of the group don't want to do anything that's not ok to everyone. We, as a group, don't do anything togheter. I'm not considering driving after a certain time. So I can go at some pub (I don't drink or smoke) or stay at home
you might also try online; playing via skype+maptools and other stuff along those lines isn't as good as playing in person, but if you find a good group it may end up being a lot more fun than what you're doing now
@Zachiel As somebody who's been there - I can sympathise. It does get better though. And as the guys say, this is the point we can't really help further.
As for your gaming issues, I would advise discussing the gameplay issues with your group and ask for suggestions on how you can have fun as a group. Maybe they need to try a different game, even if some are reluctant to leave 3.X
In some rare cases, rules tweaks can bring borderline cases back to participation. For example, streamlining combat or task systems can take a game that has an issue and make it more playable.
But in general, problems with individuals tend to be deeper than rules; setting is often far more impor...
I'm looking for some advice and input on a situation I've found myself in as a player. To give a little background, my gaming group (4 men, 2 women, between the ages of 25 and 32) is about to end a Werewolf: The Apocalypse game that has been going on for 5 years now. There have been in-game and o...
Unfortunately, Zachiel's group has noticed that he's the only one who's actually invested in having an RPG group in the first place. So they have him in a headlock.
If he doesn't do things their way, the RPG falls apart. (When he stopped GMing, there was no game until he agreed to GM again.)
@Phil Because he's the only one with that investment, they can make him dance to their tune. They don't realize that having a game in which the GM caters to their every whim (as he said he does, earlier today) isn't a game at all.
But they've having fun with their wish-fulfillment at the expense of Zachiel's social anxiety.
Now I absolutely want to play D&D too, with a character, from scratch to 20 at least and I expect the DM to do it in a way that pleases me. Unfortunately that's gonna turn into a delusion.
@Zachiel So long as you're in a poisonous environment like that one, certainly. In a less toxic group you might stand a chance, but running 20 levels is always subject to the intervention of Real Life.
@ObliviousSage I've made it 9 before... I was about to say that my GM moved to Scotland... but my PC volunteered to leave the game when he met his mother and her new partner - the big bad.
@ObliviousSage I've been talking about this some time ago. This problematic player told me he has met a guy at his university that plays the same game since 10 years ago, they're lvl 70 now
Level 70 3.5 Batman Wizard dimension shifts into Vampire: The Masquerade. Spam-casts a dozen maximized empowered expanded extended daylight spells each round, to cover the earth with light for a few months. Moves on.
So then, pick a setting, pick the most powerful beings/things in that universe and figure out how high level powers can help the Batman take over and move on.
The presumption here is that 3.5 has so many spells that are broken within its own context, placing them in a different context makes them able to handily defeat even the most powerful beings of other systems.
And that a level 70 wizard in 3.5 is simultaneously so powerful and so bored he'd do it for kicks.
Arrives in My Life With Master with a satchelful of cure scrolls. Fixes everyone's physical and mental problems.
The interesting bit of the mechanic is that while you can roll increasing amounts of reds and blacks, the more you roll the more likely to you are to incur penalties... which make your character closer to 'death,' but also give you more dice available to roll.
Yeah. The more you try to succeed immediately, the more you're able to achieve immediate success later... but the closer you get to losing your character.
Okay, I'd like to solicit ideas for my Rule 0 notions.
> Rule 0 is not a single codified rule. It’s an attitude that’s been given a fancy name to provide it rhetorical weight, and no two groups are going to define it the exact same way.
> I’ve most often seen it boiled down to “The GM is always right.” It usually either carries connotations of “The GM can change the rules whenever he wants” or “The GM can say ‘no’ whenever he wants.” Neither of these is true, nor do they address the heart of why Rule 0 contains value.
> First, it’s important to remember that Rule 0 is primarily a social construct, not an ACTUAL rule. It arose spontaneously out of an environment I am far too young to have experienced myself, but I can do some informed speculation on the issues it was trying to address. In no particular order:
> a) Game Rules Can’t Handle the Extent of Player Creativity. No game can cover every possible permutation that will show up at the table, and the group needs a method to deal with this when it comes up. Since the GM is usually the one with the fullest picture of the situation and the most experience in the rules, it makes sense for the GM to be the arbiter.
> b) The GM Has Better Ideas. Sometimes in order for something cool to happen, the GM has to bend or break the rules. Most groups want to allow cool stuff.
> c) The GM Does All the Work, and thus should be given power and prestige in accordance with his effort. This is blatantly silly, but appealing to a GM’s ego. In groups where being GM is an onerous task no one really wants, this kind of power bribe might be seen as necessary to get anyone to take up the mantle.
> d) Somebody Should Be In Charge. This is simple social psychology; because the GM runs most of the game world, he should ‘logically’ also be in control of the rules and the group.
Someone needs to be the impartial arbirtrator when rules queries come up. Players cannot generally do this as they have an inherent interest in the survival of their characters and are therefore biased. The GM's role is to be impartial and therefore they are in the best position to resolve rules queries fairly
@besw I can wait a better version or we could move the discussion there. It's an italian forum but we can have the discussion in english without anyone complaining
@SimonGill Except when a system can handle it without human intervention
every time I try to make an easy example trollbabe comes to my mind but trollbabe has other problems and I usually can't get much out of it
@Zachiel I pasted a very rough early and incomplete draft of a controversial topic here because it grows out of an existing conversation so the people here already know where I'm coming from and we are familiar with each others' ideas and rhetoric. I'm not interested in blind workshopping.
@Zachiel Can you give an example of a system that manages it? FATE comes closest, but even so, there's a lot of judgement calls about how something can be done mechanically.
