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

[Ruin Explorer]

And most of the players I've ever met, though more so in days of old than now.

I remember most of the 1980s disappearing under discussions and arguments over proposed rule changes.

I played back then and saw a lot of that, but 90% of the time it was just because the DM was really bad at getting buy-in, and/or suggesting something absolutely obviously stupid.

Personally I managed to get players to accept any number of rules, and I don't think there were any large fights - indeed the one rule I did have to take back (something about criticals, I forget what), it was me who thought it was a problem, they were kind of okay either way. But the key was, I always made sure I as fully as possible understood any rule I was adding or changing, and what it would do, and made sure I could and did explain to the players what I was adding/changing. This wasn't how most '90s DMs I met operated - they had an astonishing tendency to make quite sweeping or severe rules-changes absolutely on the spot, and couldn't explain their rationale well because they hadn't even considered it! Let alone checked if they fully understood what they were changing!

 

[Thomas Shey]

That for most people fun Is more important than the rules?

No, that paying attention to rules is never relevant to fun.

No false dichotomy there. Some people love the rules and nothing but the rules, more people love rule 0. I didn't say there weren't people on the other side. I simply said rule 0 seems to be eternal and the other side failed to kill it.

I'd argue that's because early on we taught everyone to expect an authoritarian approach on the part of GMs and that's been very hard to kill, even when people were trying to. Rule 0 feeds right into that.

 

[Lanefan]

But this doesn't seem to make sense - why would a supernatural effect make an Elf age more than a Halfling more than a human?

Because it has the same physical effect on the victim's body, regardless of species.

This does, of course, assume the natural sequence of events as one ages is similar among all kindred species, only stretched or compressed along different timescales for different species' lifespans.

The example and precedent for this assumption comes from good ol' JRRT: Hobbits come of age at 33, the rough equivalent of Humans "coming of age" at 21 (which was the norm in his day). To me this almost screams out that a 24-year-old Hobbit is developmentally about the same as a 15-year-old Human,. The "age categories" and associated stat modifiers given for different species in the 1e (PH? DMG? too lazy to check right now) solidly back this up.

Thus, it makes sense to me that something that ages a Human 10 years (i.e. about half the span of an age category) should also age an Elf or a Dwarf or a Half-Orc by an amount that represents roughly that same half-an-age-category span, because that's the effect that ghost or whatever is having on the victim's physiology.

 

[Lanefan]

With our table, I generally make a house rule and then inform the table.
We then incorporate the new rule.

Same here, except as far as possible the new rule isn't incorporated until after the current campaign is done, in order to avoid violating precedents already set within that campaign.

I've a fairly long list of such rule changes, mostly already known to and discussed with the players over time, waiting in the wings for a new campaign.

Sometimes an issue with the new house rule comes to the fore and we discuss it for a possible change. Input from everyone at the table is appreciated.

That is how we do it - and our campaign is almost 10 years, so none of this is at session 0.

Currently we have a player voicing their dissatisfaction with our initiative system (almost 2 years in). I too think it needs some refinement.
We will probably change that at some point in the near future and I'll get input from the table for this.

Initiative is a fine example of something that generally can be tweaked on the fly, as everyone still gets actions etc. each round and all you're doing is adjusting how those actions might be sequenced. However, if the tweaks resulted in one class or species gaining or losing any significant amount (hypothetical example: Fighters get fewer attacks per round in the new system) then that would have to wait for the next campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mechanically you could have it they just move up and age boundary. To avoid doing too much maths.

Which in this case appears to be, "any maths". Although like I said as the DM I'm happy to do it.

 

[clearstream]

Huh? It's one of the standard methods suggested by Gygax in his DMG.

I had also planned to reply. The method has appeared in every edition of D&D from Advanced onward...

In AD&D its alternative method given in DMG p11

All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.​

In 2e it is one of five alternatives to the standard procedure in PHB p13

Method V: Roll four six-sided dice (4d6).Discard the lowest die and total the remaining three. Repeat this five more times, thenassign the six numbers to the character’sabilities however you want.​

By 3.5 it is the standard method in PHB p7

To create an ability score for your character, roll four six-sided dice (4d6). Disregard the lowest die roll and total the three highest ones.​

In 4e its one of three equal options in PHB p18

Roll four 6-sided dice (4d6) and add up the highest three numbers. Do that six times, and then assign the numbers you generated to your six ability scores. Apply your racial ability adjustments.​

In 2014 5e the rule it's back to being the standard method in PHB p13

You generate your character's six ability scores randomly. Roll four 6-sided dice and record the total of the highest three dice on a piece of scratch paper. Do this five more times, so that you have six numbers.​

​

And back again to being one of three equal options in 2024 5e PHB p38

Random Generation. Roll four d6s and record the total of the highest three dice. Do this five more times, so you have six numbers.​

It wasn't a rule or optional rule prior to AD&D so far as I can find. Yes, I did dive way too deep into the minutiae.

 

[Oofta]

No, that paying attention to rules is never relevant to fun.



I'd argue that's because early on we taught everyone to expect an authoritarian approach on the part of GMs and that's been very hard to kill, even when people were trying to. Rule 0 feeds right into that.

Rules referee is not the same as authoritarian in the sense that you imply. I for one get tired of being told that we've been playing the game wrong for decades.

 

[Emerikol]

I think the key here is the goal of a DM is to make a fun campaign but it has to be fun for him or her too. So my advice to DMs is to develop a campaign you are passionate about and then find players that share that passion. Playing is a far smaller commitment so I believe you could just like it but not love it and still do it. It's too much work for a DM and it's also a sure way to failure because a DM that doesn't love it won't be a good DM.

So I'm very straightforward and blunt about both how I see the rules and rule 0 but also what my intentions are in terms of the game. I also try to clarify the style of game I'm running so that if it's not to the taste of a player they can get out right away. I don't think less of anyone doing that at all. Go find a good game for you. I do think less of people who stay behind and try to undermine what the DM is trying to do at every turn despite being warned about the nature of the game. I'd boot such a player.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd argue that's because early on we taught everyone to expect an authoritarian approach on the part of GMs and that's been very hard to kill, even when people were trying to. Rule 0 feeds right into that.

Not a surprise that it's hard to convince people we as a community have been teaching that they're better and more deserving than everyone else at the table and should be viewed as infallible for the past 50 years to share even the tiniest sliver of control and power.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rules referee is not the same as authoritarian in the sense that you imply. I for one get tired of being told that we've been playing the game wrong for decades.

I've seen enough of it that I'm quite willing to say it lead to leaning in to just that, and I've got as much a right to think its a bad habit as you do to think it isn't. I saw plenty of consequences of that early on and if I never see it again, I'll consider that quite a virtuous outcome.