D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Maxperson]

But yeah, I tend to resolve to hyperbole. I find it easier to think in extremes, it gives me ways to talk about things with burning passion rather than detached clinicality.

That's good to know. Even though we like different styles of gaming, you've had some ideas that I've found very interesting. My biggest issue with your posts is the One True Way tone of them, but knowing that it's more a style of thinking than a belief in one true way will help with my responses to you. I'll try to keep that in mind in the future.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess I am not at all sure what it is exactly that 'rule 0' is good for. I mean, at any given table the participants in the game can decide to defer to the GM (or even someone else) as they see fit. Furthermore, the GM, regardless of what is written, can only exercise authority over the table which the other participants are willing to give them. Thus, IME, the concept of rule 0 is really kind of empty. It is more simply a fairly aggressive statement of an expected idea of how the designer imagines things working. Likewise the non-existence of a rule 0 in no way precludes the participants from deferring to the GM (or whomever) as they wish. Again, its non-existence is, perhaps, evidence of a certain orientation in the designer's mind (but maybe not, negative evidence being hard to interpret and all).

It's purpose is acceptability. A game with a clear rule that players have to hop on one foot while talking is much more likely to get players to go along than one that doesn't have it, but which the DM adds it in.

Rule 0 being official sanction for the DM to alter the rules makes it far more likely for the group to go along with it than if the DM of a game without rule 0 tried it.

Since D&D is designed to be customized by the table, an official Rule 0 is critical.

 

[Maxperson]

Any time I see something like rule 0, I take it as a clear admission from the designers that they have punted on the job of designing.

I don't know about other games, but that's not what Rule 0 is for D&D. D&D is designed to encourage DMs/tables to change things in order to make the game their own. It's not there so that the DM can finish the game design.

 

[Lanefan]

Nope.

Consider my example above, of a player feeling that it is unfair that only the one person gets to rework their character, not everyone. Their position is, in simple terms, "Either everyone should get this benefit, or no one should get this benefit." Meanwhile, my initial position is simply, "The cleric gets this benefit."

No one needs to compromise or give up things they value to make these positions align. It is as simple as, "Oh, that's okay, we can give everyone a chance to do the same thing. The reasons will be different though, so if anyone else wants to rework their character, even in a small way, we just need to sit down and work out the how and why."

Which means you've given up your initial position of "The cleric gets this benefit". But, though IMO the player is quite right in calling out what might be seen as favouritism, there's very little actual disagreement in this example.

More relevant, what if someone in the group doesn't square with reworking characters at all; that the character's class and abilities etc. are locked in once chosen, and to change them that much all at once bends the fiction too far sideways. Now what?

Likewise, if the player individually wants something (like, say, spending group money on a personal benefit), there's no compromise required in saying that they'll pay it forward or take a lesser share of future treasure or the like. That's just the players agreeing between themselves how treasure will be distributed, something everyone agrees needs to happen (assuming everyone is actually playing in good faith, of course.)

I've seen hours-long arguments over things just like this, and as it's all in-character there ain't nothing I-as-DM can do about it. Because yes, there is potential disagreement in allowing the character to take futures or pay it forward in that there's nothing stopping that character from leaving the party (intentionally or otherwise) and as some might not want to risk potentially losing that money if-when such an event occurs. And so, someone has to compromise or concede before things can move forward.

I don't think either has occurred in my game. I actively engage with my players both in and out of game, both individually and collectively, to make sure their needs are being met. As noted above, I have encouraged an environment where, if someone has an issue, they can bring it to me and I will anonymously discuss it with the group, that way the quiet folks can speak up without having to scrape up their courage first (as someone with at least mild social anxiety, that's something I very much understand.)

Which raises the issue of things potentially affect the whole group being discussed or decided in secret rather than with the whole group at once; and while I understand the conflict-avoidance appeal of this, it's a breeding ground for resentment and distrust. It can also put you in a bind, if two players come to you individually at different times with opposing issues, e.g. (in an extreme case) one player comes to you and says they won't play if Johnny stays in the game and another comes and says they won't play if Johnny leaves the game.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't really have a citation. .....

OHHHH, you are calling me on AD&D COMBAT, hahahahahaha! Well go read the DMG 1e CAREFULLY, because it explicitly states that characters don't get to attack whomever they want, that each round you will randomly attack another character in the melee. How would that be true if you know exactly where everyone is? I mean, given that there ARE actually rules for weapon reach and such! Also, carefully read the example combat, the one with Gutboy Alehouse and Co. It demonstrates this exactly, no locations, nor even a map, are specified or needed.

Hmmmm...this doesn't sound famiiar (though I do remember the example, and Gutboy!), so I'll go have a look and get back to ya.

Now, I will agree with you that AD&D combat system is TOTALLY INCOHERENT in many respects and there are later in the section diagrams showing how characters align on squares and hexes and who can attack whom (but it never actually says you know where you are, lol). Its basically a hot mess, but the literal rules text states flat out that you are just "in melee" and every rule associated with interacting with a melee is written from the perspective that its almost impossible to tell who is who and where anyone is (IE fire an arrow into melee, or drop a rock into one, read the rules for that!).

Yes, shooting into melee is random as the assumption is that the participants are usually moving around too much to be able to get a clear bead on any specific one. (I think the rules assume open-field battles as the default)

There are NO EXACT LOCATIONS in a melee. Amusingly we don't really know what area it even encompasses, nothing. Yes, I know, spells and whatnot all have exactly shaped areas and ranges, oh well! I told you it makes no sense!

There are guidelines as to how much space each character takes up, and each weapon has a listed length (which implies its reach), so there's that to build on if nothing else.

But now you've got me curious; so again, I'll have a look.

 

[Lanefan]

No, not without directly violating rules. More than that, in many PbtA games, even if "rocks fall" situation is actually justified (say, there's an avalanche coming, but one of the PC willingly ignores that danger), the player is the one deciding whether their character will live or die. They may think "yeah, death here sounds cool". Or they may decide to survive with -1 Hard and the GM can't say boo to that.

Also, a hard move (one with long-lasting consequences that can't be easily dealt with) can only be made in two situations:

1. A dice roll is failed
2. An established danger is ignored

For example, if a sniper is watching an exit from the bar when PC opens the door, in D&D you would make a to-hit roll, a damage roll, and there's a possibility of PC dying to something they never even seen coming.

In Apocalypse World, sniper cannot hit the first shot. She can miss, she can shoot an NPC nobody cares about, someone can warn PCs that they are hunted, GM can just "show" how the sniper is lying in an ambush, watching the door, to the players even if PCs don't know about her, whatever, but she must be clearly established to bear any harm.

What if the PC is the sniper, waiting for an NPC target to exit the bar? Must that PC also miss on her first shot?

 

[loverdrive]

What if the PC is the sniper, waiting for an NPC target to exit the bar? Must that PC also miss on her first shot?

No, because nobody cares whether NPCs get a chance to act or not. From narrative perspective PCs are more important, and from the gameplay perspective, GM's ability to participate in the process isn't predicated on NPCs, so they are significantly less valueable.

 

[clearstream]

It's purpose is acceptability. A game with a clear rule that players have to hop on one foot while talking is much more likely to get players to go along than one that doesn't have it, but which the DM adds it in.

Rule 0 being official sanction for the DM to alter the rules makes it far more likely for the group to go along with it than if the DM of a game without rule 0 tried it.

Since D&D is designed to be customized by the table, an official Rule 0 is critical.

I'm finding these last few pages of discussion interesting. It seems that

1. Most folk feel that all TTRPG's contain an unwritten rule zero
2. Some folk feel that a written rule zero has a stronger effect on play than an unwritten one
3. Most folk feel that there are written and unwritten principles constraining how rule zero is used
4. If 2. follows, it's equally well justified to say that written principles will more strongly constrain rule zero than unwritten

From earlier conversation (here and elsewhere) play will be more predictable (i.e. consistent) across cohorts given written rather than unwritten rule zeros (same applies to principles.) It seems that everyone is in agreement that there are unwritten principles (among them, rule zero) that guide how we play every TTRPG... and the foregoing argues that play gains unpredictability (i.e. inconsistency) in view of them. I write this just to summarise what I believe folk have said.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm finding these last few pages of discussion interesting. It seems that

1. Most folk feel that all TTRPG's contain an unwritten rule zero
2. Some folk feel that a written rule zero has a stronger effect on play than an unwritten one
3. Most folk feel that there are written and unwritten principles constraining how rule zero is used
4. If 2. follows, it's equally well justified to say that written principles will more strongly constrain rule zero than unwritten

From earlier conversation (here and elsewhere) play will be more predictable (i.e. consistent) across cohorts given written rather than unwritten rule zeros (same applies to principles.) It seems that everyone is in agreement that there are unwritten principles (among them, rule zero) that guide how we play every TTRPG... and the foregoing argues that play gains unpredictability (i.e. inconsistency) in view of them. I write this just to summarise what I believe folk have said.

Hmmm... Not sure if I agree with your assessment here and I'm worried that you are reading what you wanna read rather than what some of us, such as myself have said. In my case, for example, I don't think that (1) "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten rule zero;" instead, it's more that I believe that hacking, house rules, and modifications are a natural byproduct of gamers engaging in the hobby. I think that calling it an "unwritten rule zero" implies real credence to "rule zero" as a rules concept here, but that's not really the case at all. I think that misunderstands both the function of rules and what's actually transpiring.

Edit: My additional concern with the presumption that "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten rule zero," is that it risks smuggling in other cultural assumptions (particularly from prevailing schools of thought in D&D play cultures) about what "rule zero" entails in games that lack a Rule Zero.

 

[chaochou]

I also reject the proposition that all RPGs contain rule zero, whether written or not.

It assumes that, for example, Apocalypse World is not the first RPG I'm going to read and play. Or that Diaspora doesn't mean what it says. Or that if they are, and do, that I'm somehow going to ignore them anyway, and both learn and import (dysfunctional) processes from games I don't own and have no knowledge of or interest in playing instead of following the game text.

There's a certain subset of people that believe in a universal rule zero in roleplaying, and mainly they are people who have normalised D&Ds GM-controlled railroading and illusionism to the point where they deny even the concept of an alternative.