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

[Thomas Shey]

It's more the connotation to me, that's all. As @AbdulAlhazred noted, it's a very zero-sum game viewpoint when it shouldn't be.

The problem is that I suspect to a fair number of people, there really is a certain degree of zero-sum elements involved in this sort of thing, at least potentially.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, that’s pretty common. My post was about my use as a GM. Even then, I prefer to think of it as “our campaign” because I don’t feel like it’s a solo thing or that I have some kind of ownership over it.

The ownership I have over my campaign is that if I decide to stop DMing it, it ends.

A player does not* have that same degree of ownership; if a player decides to stop playing in the campaign, the campaign continues with the remaining player(s) plus maybe one or more new recruits.

* - exception: a campaign with only one player ends if that player decides to stop playing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The ownership I have over my campaign is that if I decide to stop DMing it, it ends.

A player does not* have that same degree of ownership; if a player decides to stop playing in the campaign, the campaign continues with the remaining player(s) plus maybe one or more new recruits.

* - exception: a campaign with only one player ends if that player decides to stop playing.

I think in many cases (which doesn't have to apply to you) a single player ending participation in a campaign can also end it even if they aren't alone. The simplest case is when the player owns the only practical place to hold the campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

I think in many cases (which doesn't have to apply to you) a single player ending participation in a campaign can also end it even if they aren't alone. The simplest case is when the player owns the only practical place to hold the campaign.

Fair. IME the DM always hosts, if for no other reason than not having to cart all the materials around for every session.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let me ask you a question, and perhaps the nature of the question will show why there's some issues with this discussion.

Do "tolerate" and "agree" operate as synonymous terms to you?

It depends on the context of their usage. Their definitions are not necessarily synonymous, but once again we’re running into the complexity of language. I would say that a person who decides to play a game with rules they might not like but are willing to tolerate is necessarily agreeing to play by those rules. Especially in the context of roleplaying games, which are played under a shared social contract. Contract is definitionally synonymous with agreement. If you are playing in an RPG, you are agreeing to the terms of its social contract, which includes whatever the rules of that game are decided to be. One could try to negotiate for different terms, and one could agree to terms despite having some objectives to them. But one can’t, in my understanding, play in the game without agreeing to the terms of its social contract.

I'd suggest that there's some fairly significant connotational differences to most people, and you seem (not the word) to be considering the second to engulf the meaning of the first.

They may have connotational differences, depending on how they’re being used, but I think in this context, an agreement to play in a game is an agreement to the rules of that game, and any objections to that statement are based on baggage one may be carrying over from some other context.

 

[TiQuinn]

The problem is that I suspect to a fair number of people, there really is a certain degree of zero-sum elements involved in this sort of thing, at least potentially.

On the forums, certainly.

At the table? Well, if so, those are definitely the people to avoid, IMO.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm prepared to entertain the notion of a respectable, contemporary mode in which one participant owns "the campaign" which is a kind of resource or institution that they count as their property. They would be chief author of and retain the artifacts and identities it is formed of. What they say about the campaign is true for anyone who concedes that they are the right person to say it, which is to say everyone who is qualified (through, inter alia, that acceptance) to participate in it.

I've observed that said ownership and authorship can get tangled up with other assumptions that to me seem erroneous.

I’m not looking at it as some kind of legal contract. If I’m playing with friends, which is like 99% of my gaming, then I’m going to consider and respect what they want from play.

If I’m playing or running a group that’s new to me, I’m likewise going to consider their wants for the game. I may not be aware of all their wants, but if I share a homebrew rule and not everyone is on board with it, I’ll drop it.

So I just don’t see this idea of “it’s the DM’s campaign” as necessary. I certainly don’t think of a DM who compromises with or considers his players as “not being worthwhile.”

 

[pemerton]

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.

Huh? Playing a game, and losing, can still be fun. Back when I used to play a bit of M:tG, I would almost always lose, as the people I was playing against were strong players in the local scene. That didn't mean I didn't enjoy myself!

 

[Thomas Shey]

On the forums, certainly.

At the table? Well, if so, those are definitely the people to avoid, IMO.

I dunno, that seems to exclude a lot of people who have strong expectations and, if confronted by someone with different, but equally strong expectations, figure in some cases someone is going to lose there. That doesn't seem an exceptionally uncommon experience or one that necessarily speaks badly of anyone involved.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't really think so, but see my post above about the connotational differences between "tolerating" something and "agreeing" with it. I suspect to my view what you're talking about is more what I would refer to as "accepting" something contextually than "agreeing" with it.

I mean, its hard for me to see something I think is a bad idea and something I think I'm going to dislike as "agreeing" with it, even if I accept it as a price of continuing.

Would you not say that signing a contract with terms you dislike but tolerate is agreeing to those terms?