D&D General A glimpse at WoTC's current view of Rule 0

[TheSword]

Interesting. So far, very positively received.

To be clear, I don't have any issue with it being more collaborative (though it's certainly a different take). I just think it's a bit vague as to good application, bad application, etc.

Mostly because I'm not a fan of changing the rules to wily nilly, as changes tend to have ripple effects and unintended results.

Then presumably you wouldn’t agree and therefore the rule wouldn’t get changed.

Rule Zero makes clear that the rules themselves don’t have some special dogmatic legitimacy purely because they’re written in the books. Following a rule for its own sake when no one at the table wants it makes no sense.

 

[TheSword]

The DM still gets to be the ultimate arbiter of their world though because frankly, no one can make them DM. It’s all voluntary.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The DM still gets to be the ultimate arbiter of their world though because frankly, no one can make them DM. It’s all voluntary.

In particular no can make a DM use a rule they do not like, unless they are willing to step on up and DM and I would be fine with that. I mean if I really, really do not like I can choose to not play.

 

[Dire Bare]

Interesting. So far, very positively received.

To be clear, I don't have any issue with it being more collaborative (though it's certainly a different take). I just think it's a bit vague as to good application, bad application, etc.

Mostly because I'm not a fan of changing the rules to wily nilly, as changes tend to have ripple effects and unintended results.

If changes have ripple effects and unintended results . . . who cares? Then you use Rule 0 to adjust and move on.

 

[Dire Bare]

The DM still gets to be the ultimate arbiter of their world though because frankly, no one can make them DM. It’s all voluntary.

Well, as you stated above . . . if a proposed rule doesn't sit well with the DM, then the group decision isn't unanimous.

But the old school idea of the DM being the "ultimate arbiter" is just that, old school. More and more players are taking a more collaborative approach where the DM is more a director or facilitator rather than a "god". Both with the game rules and the lore of the game world.

Anecdotally, my own adult play groups have shifted this way over the years. And I work with middle school students, and when left on their own, this is also more the norm, collaborative play. The lore of the game world tends to be more emergent and fluid, rather than some kids magnum opus they've been writing since 6th grade.

Then again, I do have a few kids with old-school dads who've taught them, what I consider, bad D&D habits. I have to reign them in from time to time from being gatekeepers . . .

In my own gaming, I'm not eager to return to the days where all of the power, and all of the burden, is on me as the DM. I am enjoying much more the more collaborative, fluid, and emergent game play. I love world-building, but it's almost a separate hobby for me now. Maybe I should write a crappy LitRPG novel . . . .

 

[Micah Sweet]

While looking at the educator resources over on D&D beyond, I stumbled upon WoTC's current (and free) intro adventure for new (and mostly younger) players Peril in Pinebrook.

Like the starter sets this adventure has a rules primer along with it and a decent size section on how to run the game.

Unlike the starter sets OR the current rule books - it actually mentions and defines Rule 0. From the adventure:

Rule 0. Rule 0 of D&D is simple: Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone.

Has this been defined in such a manner in any other D&D supplement? If so, I certainly haven't seen it. I find this definition too open ended for my tastes! And also overly ambiguous. Does it mean rules changes must be unanimous? Majority vote? Whatever the most charismatic person at the table is able to convince the rest of the table? To me, this definition, while well intentioned, will/can cause more issues than it solves!

Thoughts?

Probably why it didn't make it into the corebooks in that form.

 

[Greg K]

The DM still gets to be the ultimate arbiter of their world though because frankly, no one can make them DM. It’s all voluntary.

Exactly, and, when I run D&D, I am going to introduce upfront the house and setting rules for me to run the game. Part of the house and setting rules include species, both available classes and subclasses (official and unofficial) and spells not being used. Players can buy in or not.

If a player is not willing to buy in, I will talk with them and see if there is another way, within the set limits to address their concern. For example, a player wants to be play a drow., I don't have drow, but I have elves that look similar, but are a variant of high elf. If a player wants to play an Artificer, I can cover the alchemist subclass with a third party Alchemist class.

If they want to play the Artillerist type, it is not happening in the majority of campaigns due to setting. If I am running a setting where an Artillerist type might fit, I would use a third party class or offer a different system and the setting is going cut off other options.
edit: Battle Smith, probably, isn't flying in any campaign.

 

[KYRON45]

The main reason I gravitated towards D&D as a kid instead of sports was that the rules advocated compromise. Also; I’m slow and uncoordinated.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mean, I think it's a good introduction.

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of playing is to have fun. And what constitutes fun is probably different for @Lanefan than it is for @Hussar - and that's okay!

When I'm playing, I run any changes or questions by the DM, because I think that is the right thing to do.

And when I'm DMing, that is also what happens.

The only other thing is that if there is a rule question or issue, we make a determination and move on. Don't spend time arguing it at the table. We can always look it up and re-visit the issue later on when it doesn't interrupt the flow of play. I'd rather have something done quickly and wrong at the time, than spend an hour making sure it is done right.

 

[payn]

I’m a rulings over rules kinda guy who likes room for ambiguity.