>If you don't like a rule then change it
I'm sorry but is this the least helpful advice you could possibly give someone having trouble with a game/system?
It's equivalent to going "I dunno do whatever man" when someone's saying their computer's stopped working. At least try to discern what they want from the ruleset and devise a mechanical solution for them, don't just give them offhand "do whatever" advice and then sit back and twiddle your thumbs like you're some kind of tabletop RPG savant.
Yeah
When 99.999999% of people using the system use it as is, it doesn't need "fixing". You want something different it's on you.
Also, nice false equivalency.
It's an important clarification to make. The GM is not actually bound by rules, because the rules can be changed by them.
Keeps the retarded rules lawyers from wasting everyone's time.
I don't see a problem with it. DnD 4e had a rule that if you found a magical item you just had to spoon with it over a short rest to figure out what it did, we houseruled that you coul djust do an arcana check instead. Houserules great tools for any GM.
There have have been times where I've replaced sections if the rules to better reflect a campaign world or written new rules to cover something not dealt with in the rules as written. That's basically what the rule 0 is there for. Its basically carte blanche for GMs to alter the game to fit the needs of the campaign and the group as a whole
So, you're a moron.
>At least try to discern what they want from the ruleset and devise a mechanical solution for them
If you don't homebrew custom rules for people every time they complain and instead tell them to do it themselves, you're a dick! - OP
>Keeps the retarded rules lawyers from wasting everyone's time.
>By making the GM waste everyone's time instead.
Fucking Masterpiece!
You have part of a point, but you're also missing the point of rule zero.
I think the important thing here is:
Rule 0 is meant to be a creative tool to remind GM's that tabletop RPG's are malleble and that he can do what he pleases with them.
It's NOT however an excuse for when a games rules fail to meet a standard or fufil a promise the game offers.
Wouldn't it be easier to just run a game with a system that already fits the needs of the campaign/group by default?
Because it seems foolish to carve out huge swathes of the rules outright when most systems can be read and understood in less than a day at the absolute worst.
>Wouldn't it be easier to just run a game with a system that already fits the needs of the campaign/group by default?
But that's probably not-D20! Holy shit the balls on this one must be planet sized and made of pure dragonforce!
Rule 0 is a grey area deliberately. The designers can't account for every situation and combination, no matter how much they want to (or want to make people think they do). A system provides a specific framework. A DM closes the gaps or modifies it to taste.
Like, how many ways can you make mac and cheese? How many ingredients can you sub out or add before it stops being mac and cheese?
That's sort of what Rule Zero deals with
>Food analogy
Fuck you I'm hungry.
You have autism.
Stop rollplaying.
>When 99.999999% of people using the system use it as is, it doesn't need "fixing".
This system does not exist.
It's inevitable because you are a real human being and the rules is just some book, you can inherently do whatever you want so it's more honest to include this disclaimer than insist on some impossible dynamic of pure rules obedience.
>Meanwhile, at Games Workshop...
Thank fucking god I don't have crippling massive autism like OP.
>A rare moment where GW beats TSR/WotC
>GW's "Most important Rule" is get away with cheating 50% of the time
Really makes ya think
As opposed to D&D, where rule 0 allows the GM to change the rules on the fly if it "enhances the story."
Personally, I'd rather the rules lawyer be wrong 50% of the time by RAW than the GM changing the rules at the drop of a hat.
40K is a wargame, D&D is a RPG
Encouraging cheating in a heads up competitive wargame is a billion times more problematic than the DM being able to make up fun things in an RPG.
You say that as if the rule is literally "make up shit, whoever rolls X gets to use that rule instead."
It's pretty much "rule 0: Except an actual resolution mechanic" since it keeps the game moving and both sides can talk about shit after game. Plus, in order for this rule to go into effect, it would have to be an instance that's already not covered by the rules in the first place, so it's not cheating.
when it comes to a game system fitting the needs of the campaign and group by default, I find there is always a system that is the "best fit", but never one that is actually a "perfect fit".
So what I do is find that "best fit" game and then tweak it a little to make it an even better fit. That's what rule 0 is about.
>So what I do is find that "best fit" game and then tweak it a little to make it an even better fit. That's what rule 0 is about.
If you're cutting out whole sections of the rules to make it a "perfect fit," it wasn't the best fit in the first place.
However, if you're not the OP I was talking to then disregard this post.
>It's equivalent to going "I dunno do whatever man" when someone's saying their computer's stopped working.
That's a fucking worthless analogy. Game rules are a social contract, and a social contract can be changed if the participants agree too it. A computer is a machine that can't be reasoned with and can't have its rules altered without the technical know-how, and even then there's only so much that can be done.
>If you're cutting out whole sections of the rules to make it a "perfect fit," it wasn't the best fit in the first place.
Well, that's assuming there's a better system, which there may not be. There's only a finite number of systems out there, and the very nature of fiction means that every possible setting cannot be perfectly covered down to minutiae.
>Well, that's assuming there's a better system, which there may not be.
There's literally a tabletop system for practically everything. If you cannot find a system that fits your campaign premise, you're not looking hard enough.
I like memes too!
As it turns out, there's no such thing as a perfect ruleset. Rules designed to cover a very broad range of scenarios tend to lack the granularity needed to resolve a situation adequately, and rules designed to cover very specific scenarios can very often clash with the system as a whole or miss the forest for the trees.
Understandably, people try to do this with systems like Pathfinder to try and adapt that clusterfuck into some post-apocalyptic steam_cyerpunk setting when it was clearly designed to do one thing and one thing only (in this case, fall apart at the seams at the slightest provocation). However, familiarity cannot be discounted when trying to find a ruleset to run a game in.
You missed the keyword there.
"Better"
Just because joe blow on the internet made a super niche RPG for some very specific game, doesn't necessarily mean its any good compared to something more broad.
>practically everything.
That's what that user is saying. Sometimes there's not going to be a system that is an exact fit for the game you want to run, and you might have to find the next best thing and make adjustments. Practically everything isn't literally everything, it's everything that's practical, but there's going to be niche or obscure settings that fall through the cracks.
As an anecdotal example, I've been wanting to run a toku game inspired by Kamen Rider mixed with Christianity and thrown into .Hack. I've found several systems that are good enough, but they need some tweaking to match the setting and tone I want. I haven't found a system that already has 100% of what I want.
How do you know though? Trash exists as both unofficial indie projects and large scale entries.
Practically everything will still cover a large portion of possible campaign ideas.