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

[Vaalingrade]

You know D&D's community has gone too far when we're litigating the word 'fun' as it pertains to 'pretend, but with dice and books' and have been for the past twenty years near'abouts.

 

[TheSword]

I mean look how quickly people were to point out the 'loophole' to this simple advocacy for collaborative play that the DM can simply hold the game hostage until they get their own way. That's not coming from nothing.

Hostage implies that people can’t leave. While in a game folks can leave at any time on both sides. That’s my point.

Like any suitably complicated collection of rules they are open to be gamed and combined in some pretty twisted ways. We’ve seen it on the boards time and time again. 5.5 has corrected many but there will always be new ones. No one can force the DM to have to put up with problem elements in their games because the player doesn’t agree to give them up.

Let’s take one of the simplest changes to the rules that a DM may make. ‘This thing does not exist in my setting’. Leomund’s [not so] Tiny Hut for instance. Which is my most hated spell in the game. Rope Trick comes a close second for me. Conjure Minor Elemental might be another that different DMs dislike. If I say look guys I don’t want that spell in the game, or I’m changing the spell to be more or less powerful, no one can make me run a campaign for a player that demands to have it because they don’t consent to give it up.

In truth it’s not that the DM can take the game hostage. It’s that a player can’t take the DM hostage and make them run a game for them when it’s not fun for the DM because of a RAW character that steals the joy out of it for them.

That’s what I mean that the DM will be the ultimate arbiter of their world. I suspect the DM’s Guide will elaborate more.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Third - and IME most common - option: the dissenter(s) keep playing in that game and do what they can to get the rule changed again, either back to what it was before or to something else they feel is better than the change that was made.

 

[Lanefan]

Fun is kind of a slippery word. Because I think “fun” is often used as shorthand for describing enjoyment of a leisure activity. But also some things that aren’t typically described as “fun” can be enjoyable as part of leisure activities. Like, catharsis, for example, can be greatly enjoyable despite not being what I think most would typically call “fun.” But I don’t think that the intent of this passage was to say that a rules change aimed at producing cathartic gameplay experience isn’t sanctioned under rule zero. Language is complicated like that.

To add to this: half an hour ago I finished running a session in which one of a player's characters (she's running two at the moment) had an awful evening: aged by a ghost in one room and then level-drained by a wraith in another. Hardly what most people would call fun.

When the session ended the player thanked me (without sarcasm!) and said how good and exciting the session had been.

 

[Lanefan]

That's a rather odd thing to want to assert. 'What happens when people don't compromise?' They... well they don't compromise.

And when people don't compromise, telling them to compromise is a waste of time.

 

[TheSword]

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.
Thoughts?

Also worth saying that this is for cases where the rules are understood but not liked.

In cases where the rules aren’t clear then generally the DM will need to make a ruling and move on.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

good enough in and of itself, though i feel there should be some lipservice to the expectation of GM as a FAIR arbiter, "in situations where opinions diverge and a consensus cannot be reached about a change it is generally expected for the DM to have the final say and be the tiebreaker, however in such cases they should be expected to judge in the interests of the whole table and not merely their own"

 

[KYRON45]

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.

Preach!!!

 

[BookTenTiger]

To add to this: half an hour ago I finished running a session in which one of a player's characters (she's running two at the moment) had an awful evening: aged by a ghost in one room and then level-drained by a wraith in another. Hardly what most people would call fun.

When the session ended the player thanked me (without sarcasm!) and said how good and exciting the session had been.

You are literally describing someone having fun.

 

[TiQuinn]

You know D&D's community has gone too far when we're litigating the word 'fun' as it pertains to 'pretend, but with dice and books' and have been for the past twenty years near'abouts.

Litigating what is fun has literally been baked into the game since it’s birth.