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

[roguish]

Ah, this exciting new development means I need to not only update my Rule Zero Timeline, but redefine the rule. It used to be "rules are a suggestion" via "the DM's word is Law", and now that's decidedly not how we get there, and I like it. No gods no masters! Ahem.

 

[Oofta]

I think any time you get 7 people together there will be some minor disappointments and disagreements now and then. Of course everyone at the end of the day has to agree but the simple fact is that without a DM there is no game. That doesn't make the DM a ruthless dictator wielding power over his powerless subjects, it just means that the DM's choices carry a bit more weight.

Sometimes there simply is no compromise. Look at the thread on whether a rogue thief PC can cast a spell that has a casting time of an action from a scroll as a bonus action. If he DM says "no" and the player says "yes", there is no room for compromise. As it says in the intro to the 2024 DMG: "Referee. When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules."

So I don't see anything changing. In any group activity it's best if there is a process to settle disagreements. In D&D? That's the DM making the final call. Make enough bad calls and the DM won't have a group.

But ... this once again is the same old, same old. A DM making the final call on rulings is terrible vs someone has to make the final call and there's nothing wrong with that as long as we do our best to make the game fun for everyone. I've stood on the side of the latter for close to half a century on both sides of the DM's screen and with extremely rare exceptions it has worked well. Even when I wasn't 100% on board.

 

[Oofta]

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.

When I play a game I want to be challenged, if everything goes my way it's not fun any more. It's boring.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I think there's a certain kind of player from whom play CAN'T be fun unless they've personally succeeded and advanced. But IMX they're a minority.

 

[Mallus]

No need to lawyer this (apologies to all the lawyers here). The rules in the books are subordinate to the social contract between the people playing.

As it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.

 

[KYRON45]

I think there's a certain kind of player from whom play CAN'T be fun unless they've personally succeeded and advanced. But IMX they're a minority.

To break it down even further...those players who are trying to "win" or "beat" the game.

 

[Belen]

As a DM, I have to make rulings all the time. Generally, I explain my reasoning as I make a call and I will listen to objections or arguments if anyone feels strongly about it. The rulings tend to favor player agency or speeding the game along.

As for my game worlds, I ask players to write up backstories and create NPCs. I want them to feel connected to the world. Really great players will do it. You are lucky to have one of those folks at the table.

As the players typically just show up (Note: You have a good group if they make sure there characters are updated and they remember what happened last session), then I usually do not allow them to mess with the overall setting restrictions like adding warforged if they do not exist on the planet although I do make exceptions for really engaged players that take some of the burden from me.

D&D is a shared experience; however, it is the DM that puts in hours of prep time to be the engine of that experience. If a DM provides a setting guide with species and class restrictions, then cool. This is the part that is fun for the DM and often why they choose to take on the role.

I think players should respect those choices.

There was a time that I would run games even if I was unhappy in order to please my friends; however, no one else was ever willing to run a game and I realized that if the players wanted me to run, then I was going to do it in worlds and in adventures that I found fun so that I could fully engage.

 

[Kurotowa]

To break it down even further...those players who are trying to "win" or "beat" the game.

I'd call that a subset of the former, but yes. You see a lot of discussion of that sort online, going back to the 3e Character Optimization board. Though I'm never sure how much of it is theorycraft for the sake of theorycraft and how much of it is ever intended for actual play.

Honestly, I think most of the people who craft these things are doing it as an intellectual exercise, and it's other people who pick up what they've created and try to bring it to the table.

 

[Bagpuss]

I think it's fine.

I don't. Oh dear we aren't unanimous however will we decide if this is a good thing or not.

Oh I know we could keep arguing for eternity since there is no final arbiter of the rules anymore.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”​

― John Lydgate

Clearly the some of the people you need to please all of the time should be the DMs, as without them the games cannot run. Which is why the DM has traditionally been the final arbiter of the rules.

 

[Bagpuss]

Ah, this exciting new development means I need to not only update my Rule Zero Timeline, but redefine the rule. It used to be "rules are a suggestion" via "the DM's word is Law", and now that's decidedly not how we get there, and I like it. No gods no masters! Ahem.

I think your website is very useful in pointing out that the DM being the one responsible for the rules has a long history, through every edition, and even in different system, probably with good reason.

Not sure this change is a good idea, just going to lead to unnecessary arguments if players feel if they just keep trying hard enough to win everyone over they can change the rules.

Does anyone know if this is anywhere in the new the 2024 PHB or DMG, or what the new DMG actually says on the matter?

As the old one said....

As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them. (Page 4, 5e DMG)