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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure, but there’s still a group of participants partaking in that campaign. It’s “theirs”.

And anyway, I don’t think such semantics matter to the idea being discussed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Not really. It might mean so in a legal context, but in general usage I'd still use "accepting".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or… agree to change those rules. Either by houseruling or by agreeing to use a different ruleset entirely. Or, by agreeing to live with the changes despite them not being preferred. In all cases, there is agreement.

Agreement under duress is...a kind of agreement, sure. Doesn't mean you're happy about it.

 

[Charlaquin]

They haven't agreed to the changes. In effect, they're continuing to play "under protest" with the intent of keeping the issue an open question rather than accepting the resolution given.

I would still call that an agreement. In the same way that clicking “I agree” on the terms and conditions of a license still counts as agreeing to those terms and conditions, even if I don’t like those terms and conditions and plan to try to look for a way around them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but there’s still a group of participants partaking in that campaign. It’s “theirs”.

And anyway, I don’t think such semantics matter to the idea being discussed.

The problem is, semantics almost always matters as soon as it impacts how people perceive the matter at hand. That's why I usually think "semantic argument" is overly dismissive; semantics is, at the end of the day, while a bit meta, still a case of establishing what's actually being discussed.

 

[pemerton]

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.

No. When I play M:tG, I'm trying to win. That's the point. It doesn't mean I can't have fun unless I win. Normally I lose!

Likewise in RPGing: if I'm playing (say) White Plume Mountain, of course I'm trying to beat the dungeon. That's the whole point of play. But that doesn't mean I can't have fun unless I actually win.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I would still call that an agreement. In the same way that clicking “I agree” on the terms and conditions of a license still counts as agreeing to those terms and conditions, even if I don’t like those terms and conditions and plan to try to look for a way around them.

See, there's the problem; I don't really consider that "agreeing" in any non-legal sense.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Strong opinions are one thing but again, in practicality, people gather to play the game not argue. Those that do, at least to my mind, are not that different from those who flip the game board or rage quit video games when they lose, and I’d rather not play with them at all. I know those people exist but by my definition, it’s predicated on people being reasonable. At a point, that behavior wouldn’t be reasonable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My thought is that if you are asking these questions about Rule 0, you have not yet understood Rule 0.

If Rule 0 were a line in a movie, it would be from the 1981 comedy film, Stripes: "Lighten up, Francis."

Not everyone enjoys a light, casual gameplay experience though.

 

[Charlaquin]

I accept your preference here, but I'll be really honest and tell you there's a good chance I'll have forgotten by the next time I'm in an adjacent discussion )my memory was kind of terrible 50 years ago and has not improved in the intervening half century);

That’s why I put it in my title right under my username, so no one has to rely on memory to get it right.

I vaguely remembered you might identify as "her" and figured "their" was a better error than either of the others I could choose.

yes, they/them/theirs is a less egregious error than he/him/his (or some less common pronouns like ze/zem/zeirs) would be. But when directly informed of someone’s preferred form of address, anything other than that form of address stops being an error and starts being an intentional misuse. I am happy to give the benefit of the doubt and assume you just didn’t think to check the title under my username for preferred pronouns - it’s not a universal practice to include them there, and Pelor knows I’ve made similar mistakes plenty of times myself. But, now you know, and you can course-correct moving forward.