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

[Clint_L]

I like it, obviously. Games are for fun. I've got better things to do than argue about rules (while playing games...on this forum is another thing!). I just generally defer to the DM's preference. Hypothetically, if the DM was being unreasonable, then I guess I would have a decision to make, but that never happens.

I also don't argue about loot. In my experience, folks generally concur on who it makes the most sense for, and if someone wants it really badly, then they probably have a good reason. I can't be arsed.

 

[TiQuinn]

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?

I don’t have a problem with that definition. To me, Rule Zero has always been self-evident. If the rules work for the table, great. If they don’t, change what needs changing.

How that gets rolled out per table is going to depend entirely on the personalities at that table and it’s not possible for any game designer to dictate that. Rule Zero assumes that reasonable people will find a way forward.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don’t have a problem with that definition. To me, Rule Zero has always been self-evident. If the rules work for the table, great. If they don’t, change what needs changing.

How that gets rolled out per table is going to depend entirely on the personalities at that table and it’s not possible for any game designer to dictate that. Rule Zero assumes that reasonable people will find a way forward.

So much this.

The most important thing is... don't be a jerk. And don't play with jerks. Because if you follow that simple rule, gaming is always going to be good- even if there are rules issues.

For example, at my tables I am very generous in allowing players to re-skin, or change things, or otherwise alter rules, because they aren't jerks and I trust them.

On the other hand, you never know what is going to happen. So if a player changes something, and it turns out to not work (to be unbalancing, for example), the player ... since they aren't a jerk, works with me or will revert back to the standard rule so that it's not an issue.

Seriously, it's not rocket science. It's like any other social activity- if you're a good person, and you do it with good people, it tends to work out.

 

[Azzy]

So much this.

The most important thing is... don't be a jerk. And don't play with jerks. Because if you follow that simple rule, gaming is always going to be good- even if there are rules issues.

For example, at my tables I am very generous in allowing players to re-skin, or change things, or otherwise alter rules, because they aren't jerks and I trust them.

On the other hand, you never know what is going to happen. So if a player changes something, and it turns out to not work (to be unbalancing, for example), the player ... since they aren't a jerk, work with me or revert back to the standard rule so that it's not an issue.

Seriously, it's not rocket science. It's like any other social activity- if you're a good person, and you do it with good people, it tends to work out.

Can I get an amen?

 

[ezo]

Reading this makes me think either:

A) I must be a jerk OR
B) I am playing with the wrong people

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Well what’s the alternative? What would a scenario where a rule gets changed despite not everyone agreeing to that change actually look like? The way I see it, there are basically two possibilities. Either the dissenting person (or people) decide(s) to keep playing in that game despite not really liking the rules change… in which case, have they not in fact agreed to the rules change, albeit reluctantly? Or, the dissenter(s) decide not to play in the game any more. In which case, everyone who is left playing the game does in fact agree. Is there another alternative I’m missing?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well what’s the alternative? What would a scenario where a rule gets changed despite not everyone agreeing to that change actually look like? The way I see it, there are basically two possibilities. Either the dissenting person (or people) decide(s) to keep playing in that game despite not really liking the rules change… in which case, have they not in fact agreed to the rules change, albeit reluctantly? Or, the dissenter(s) decide not to play in the game any more. In which case, everyone who is left playing the game does in fact agree. Is there another alternative I’m missing?

The group discusses things and works together to come to a compromise?

 

[Charlaquin]

The group discusses things and works together to come to a compromise?

That would not be “a scenario where a rule gets changed despite not everyone agreeing to that change.”

 

[Jack Daniel]

▯

 

[MGibster]

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.

While I still consider myself the ultimate arbiter, I am the Dungeon Master after all, I certainly don't consider myself a "god." I don't even like hearing "My way or the highway" at work let alone in a collaborative hobby where we're supposed to be having fun. When I have to make a determination on the fly I tend to rule in the player's favor, though I might revisit the topic at a later time once I've had time to think about it. While I say yes more often than no, there are still times I do say no. Though I've never had a situation where every player wanted things one way and the DM did it the other way.