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

[AnotherGuy]

That actually sounds like a pretty good development/ opportunity for a fun campaign!
Really gives an opportunity for a "things are different here..." situation.

I find we cannot get through the traditional campaigns nevermind the off-beat ones. And I definitely want to do the off-beat ones too. It's all good.
It is definitely my DMing style.

 

[Oofta]

That actually sounds like a pretty good development/ opportunity for a fun campaign!

Really gives an opportunity for a "things are different here..." situation.

If you want that, fine. Especially if you create a new world from scratch at the start of every campaign. But if you have enough exceptions to what is normal you no longer have a normal, there is no consistency or logical reason for anything.

 

[Mort]

not if you never wanted tabaxi in your campaign world...

Then, yes, don't allow Tabaxi - and maybe encourage the player who like Tabaxi to try a hand at DMing.

 

[Bagpuss]

What does rule against the "bad" player mean?


Does it mean the player's character is overpowered but legal per the chosen game and rules set? Can the DM overrule that? Should they? Rather than just having an honest conversation?

As we are talking about Rule 0 as it was "DM the final arbiter of the rules". You've had the conversation, it didn't lead to a successful conclusion that all parties were agreed on, so in order to continue, the DM makes a final ruling.

In this instance a bad player is someone you've had the conversation with about something that is legal but spoiling other folks enjoyment of the game, and they don't want to change their behaviour. So you can change the rules so that exploit is no longer available.

 

[Mort]

As we are talking about Rule 0 as it was "DM the final arbiter of the rules". You've had the conversation, it didn't lead to a successful conclusion that all parties were agreed on, so in order to continue, the DM makes a final ruling.

In this instance a bad player is someone you've had the conversation with about something that is legal but spoiling other folks enjoyment of the game, and they don't want to change their behaviour. So you can change the rules so that exploit is no longer available.

Who said anything about a rules exploit?

Some players are just good at building characters that function exceptionally well within the guidelines provided.

So what you propose (changing the rules to make an option no longer available) is like playing whack-a-mole.

My solution to that kind of player is to absolutely let them build as effective a character as they want (within the rules and and in good faith are still assumed) as long as it doesn't step on the other players toes/other players fun.

IF the player is somehow trying to dominate the table/group and it's causing a problem - then that's a different conversation (one I thankfully haven't had in a LONG time).

 

[Oofta]

Who said anything about a rules exploit?

Some players are just good at building characters that function exceptionally well within the guidelines provided.

So what you propose (changing the rules to make an option no longer available) is like playing whack-a-mole.

My solution to that kind of player is to absolutely let them build as effective a character as they want (within the rules and and in good faith are still assumed) as long as it doesn't step on the other players toes/other players fun.

IF the player is somehow trying to dominate the table/group and it's causing a problem - then that's a different conversation (one I thankfully haven't had in a LONG time).

There are players that will exploit every loophole, research every broken combo, do everything to have an "I win" button at their disposal. Some players don't understand or ignore playing in good faith. Heck, I've had players that outright cheated and claimed abilities they were obviously not granted. That's what makes them bad players.

EDIT: note that sometimes players just misunderstand a rule as well, I know I have in the past. That doesn't make them bad players and it doesn't make a DM bad if they correct the mistake.

 

[Mort]

If you want that, fine. Especially if you create a new world from scratch at the start of every campaign. But if you have enough exceptions to what is normal you no longer have a normal, there is no consistency or logical reason for anything.

View attachment 385889

We're talking about D&D here, other worlds, other dimensions and portals to those tend to exist. Heck my players are exploring Sigil and the Outlands - not only do they exist, that's kind of the whole point.

If you have no interest in running what the player wants? that's also cool, but it's also an opportunity to look at that player and say "You know, I have no interest in running a Tabaxi world... Care to DM and give it a shot?

 

[Vaalingrade]

No one thinks they are infallible.

I refer you to all the cope about the DM still having ultimate authority.

The role though does not function well without that power.

Nope. We've been getting by just fine without it.

Players if given exactly what they claim to want will destroy the game.

Ah, the players as a scary and dumb rabble vs the rational chad DM. Yeah, that's a healthy relationship to have in a leisure activity.

 

[Mort]

There are players that will exploit every loophole, research every broken combo, do everything to have an "I win" button at their disposal. Some players don't understand or ignore playing in good faith. Heck, I've had players that outright cheated and claimed abilities they were obviously not granted. That's what makes them bad players.

EDIT: note that sometimes players just misunderstand a rule as well, I know I have in the past. That doesn't make them bad players and it doesn't make a DM bad if they correct the mistake.

Hence my point about good faith. If a player is honestly just interested in some kind of table domination? Then the game involved doesn't matter, they're not a good fit, at least at my table.

But the point is, that's a social problem, not a game problem. No in game solution, Rule 0 etc. will fix that.

 

[Oofta]

We're talking about D&D here, other worlds, other dimensions and portals to those tend to exist. Heck my players are exploring Sigil and the Outlands - not only do they exist, that's kind of the whole point.

If you have no interest in running what the player wants? that's also cool, but it's also an opportunity to look at that player and say "You know, I have no interest in running a Tabaxi world... Care to DM and give it a shot?

I let people know what my restrictions are when I invite them to my game. If my campaign was set in Sigil then anything would go, but it isn't. If someone wants to start a campaign there and I can fit it into my schedule I might be interested.