The True Rule 0.

[D-rock]

The true rule zero, I don't know what it is but I bet it is between -1.2 and pi(mmmmm pie)

I think there is also a slippery slope with ultra realism. If you change one little aspect to the most exacting detail does that mean everything else has follow it. It could seem sort of weird to some people to have one rule trying to be a simulation of real life, and an another where the dm decides "this happens just because it does". You don't want it to devolve into situations where your rollings to see it your cart accidently gets hit by a meteorite while traveling the countryside.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

It's easier to find the fun if the players have patience and trust the DM. That is, the DM may set up situations that seem not-fun in the short term but have a really cool payoff. Sometimes as a player you just have to trust the DM and see where the game goes.

Session 1 is an overpowered TPK so that you can start a campaign clawing your way back from the underworld? I'd love it if that were sprung on me as a surprise - and a situation in which I was warned it would happen wouldn't be as cool.

 

[S'mon]

Session 1 is an overpowered TPK so that you can start a campaign clawing your way back from the underworld? I'd love it if that were sprung on me as a surprise - and a situation in which I was warned it would happen wouldn't be as cool.

I'd much rather be told - I don't like bait & switch or railroads - in this case the railroading would be getting the PCs dead so the campaign premise can be fulfilled. I'd rather the GM just narrate how our PCs died (preferably heroically) fighting the overwhelming odds, then start the actual game once the desired point has been reached.

 

[MonsterMash]

I'd much rather be told - I don't like bait & switch or railroads - in this case the railroading would be getting the PCs dead so the campaign premise can be fulfilled. I'd rather the GM just narrate how our PCs died (preferably heroically) fighting the overwhelming odds, then start the actual game once the desired point has been reached.

I'd definitely prefer this approach than just have a session where there must be a TPK as the end result. Instead I'd write up a story to explain how the PC's died and read it to the players (even though I'm not a fan of using music in games Nick Cave's Death is not the end would be appropriate for mood setting here)

On the main topic of the thread, if the main thing is to have fun that means for both GM and Players - if either of those is not enjoying it or have fundamental differences in approach then there is a problem to sort out.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

I'd much rather be told - I don't like bait & switch or railroads - in this case the railroading would be getting the PCs dead so the campaign premise can be fulfilled. I'd rather the GM just narrate how our PCs died (preferably heroically) fighting the overwhelming odds, then start the actual game once the desired point has been reached.

I'd offer the choice... Something along the lines of: "I've got this great plot idea... unfortunately it requires me to kill your characters to get it started. Would you like to play that out or just drop into cinematic mode?" Either that, or save it for a time when I accidentally TPK them.

Agree with the sentiment though... Don't like to be hit with a plot like that as a suprise.


A number of years ago, had a very bad experience with this where the (relatively inexperienced) GM tried to spring this sort of plot on higher level characters. ~10th IIRC. Unfortunately, he hadn't really considered the abilities of the PCs. Particularly the wizards newly aquired Teleport spell. Resorted to a horrible bout of railroad/cheating to capture them... Players had a partial revolt afterwards. Ah well, it's a learning experience - and after that earbashing, it's not like I'm going to do it again anytime soon.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

To me, it appears that players who want to know what is going to happen in the future are expressing a certain lack of trust in the GM. Perfectly understandable in most cases, including most games I've been in. The best of games, however, have trust.

When you have gotten to know and trust the GM, is it not true that they can do things which seem less than fun in the short term but have an exceptionally cool payoff? And does knowing what's going to happen spoil the surprise? One reason I love RPGs more than CRPGs is the utter unpredictability of what will happen next.

And I hate narration with me as a specator watching my PC (cut-scenes in KOTOR for example). I'd much rather RP it out (again, without warning) - but my particular example had level 1's in mind, so it wouldn't feel particularly frustrating. A bunch of level 1's facing an encounter that happens to be CR 7 is not "railroading" IMO - it's simply denying them the usual protection that PCs get of facing things they can defeat. And against, say, a short hill giant that looks like an ogre, they might not know to run until half of them are dead or dying. (On the other hand, if they live, you improvise and take the plot in a different direction.)

 

[The_Universe]

Compromise between players (give and take amongst the group members) is just as important to maintain this "Rule -1" (as I think it rightfully preempts rule 0) as is compromise between the players as a whole and the DM/GM.

Laying down ultimatums (if it doesn't happen like this, my enjoyment is ruined!) isn't just a problem for the DM, it's a problem for the other players, who may have different expectations and desires from the adventure that you're all theoretically sharing. RPGs are, by necessity, a group oriented exercise with a lot of give and take involved. The most common infraction against "Rule -1" I've seen are players forgetting the give and going for the take with gusto. It's the "I'm the star!" syndrome, I think.

Now, there can be problems with DMs, as well....

If the DM isn't willing to give at all - you have a problem. However, players often forget that their responsibilities include the same kinds of leniency they expect (and often demand) from a DM. You can yell and scream all you want about railroading from your DM, but it can happen in reverse, as well. If you're so stuck on a course of action that you pursue it in the game against the DM's advice, don't get upset when it doesn't work out for you. You tried to build the tracks, you made the train, and you made it go - hard to be upset when the DM doesn't make a bridge appear over that canyon.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'd much rather be told - I don't like bait & switch or railroads - in this case the railroading would be getting the PCs dead so the campaign premise can be fulfilled. I'd rather the GM just narrate how our PCs died (preferably heroically) fighting the overwhelming odds, then start the actual game once the desired point has been reached.

I don't understand this concept. Whether you [blindly] play out the scenario that gets the PCs into the campaign start, or the DM tells you what happens to get the PCs into the campaign start, the PCs still start dead. Either way, the PCs still start the campaign at the same spot. You'd rather the DM tell you what happens to start, than to play out what happens to start?

Quasqueton

 

[Henry]

Is there a need for Rule 0?

I would think it was understood enough not to have to spell it out, the same way "don't kill your neighbors" is in real life, but in both cases we know it doesn't work that way.

A better rule would be, "The DM is the final arbiter of all rules disputes while AT the table," but I don't recall anywhere in the PHB or DMG that it's spelled out in black and white that way. I'd rather have it in there, or at LEAST a discussion of table rules, including this one, "group majority vote" as another, etc. And then, tell people your group needs to pick a way and stick to it. Me, I'd prefer if it just said that, similar to the way Gary G. put it back in 1979, the DM is final referee, and what rulings he or she makes sticks.

 

[diaglo]

i am a referee. always have been when running D&D, always will be.

there are no masters at the table.