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

[Oofta]

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.

This particular line of discussion started with "what is a bad player", I was just giving my perspective on why I would consider someone a bad player.

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

I find that DM making the final call helps settle a lot of arguments. Most DMs will make a quick call just to keep things going and then discuss disagreements after the session. Sometimes there is no "best" answer and some needs to make a call. I also think have a lead final decision maker or an established process for settling disagreements works best in most group activities.

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

Did you miss the "something that is legal but spoiling other folks enjoyment of the game" in my last post?

If it is an exploit or effective build that everyone is happy with then you don't even need to have the conversation, or need to change anything.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

A social problem created by the concept of Rule 0.

 

[Bagpuss]

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

That doesn't work under a "unanimous" rule 0 requirement. You can't disallow something unless everyone agrees, the player can insist it is allowed because it is in the rules and you can't change the rules without their agreement.

 

[Mort]

Did you miss the "something that is legal but spoiling other folks enjoyment of the game" in my last post?

If it is an exploit or effective build that everyone is happy with then you don't even need to have the conversation, or need to change anything.

I didn't miss that at all. My point was that if it's other than that, e.g. a bad faith attempt at some kind of domination or the like, a rules clampdown won't fix it in the slightest. It's an out of game problem that will require an out of game solution.

 

[Mort]

A social problem created by the concept of Rule 0.

How, exactly, is a player acting in bad faith and trying to dominate the table created by the concept of Rule 0?

 

[Bagpuss]

A social problem created by the concept of Rule 0.

Which one are you talking about here the unanimous decision one, or DM as final arbiter one?

I mean they both have issues but it is clear which one I feel has less.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How, exactly, is a player acting in bad faith and trying to dominate the table created by the concept of Rule 0?

When that player was told they are the final arbiter and should always get their way.

 

[Bagpuss]

I didn't miss that at all. My point was that if it's other than that, e.g. a bad faith attempt at some kind of domination or the like, a rules clampdown won't fix it in the slightest. It's an out of game problem that will require an out of game solution.

No because it doesn't always have to be some bad faith attempt at domination, it can be a simple as a different interpretations of a particular rule.

With the "unanimous decision" rule 0, you can have the game stall with empowered players thinking their interpretation is just as valid as the DM's, continuing to argue their point to the bitter end. With the DM is final arbiter rule 0, they can make a decision there and then without the need of getting everyone on board and play can continue.

Sure there are situations where someone can deliberately sabotage a game, but that isn't the case most of the time. It's normally something minor that is clearly a disagreement over how something works, or an oversight by authors on some weird combo of spells/feats, that a player has seen some exploit online and is now spamming, and meaning they are ridiculously more effective than everyone else. You don't need to have a debate and meet some unanimous decisions in those instances you need to make a quick ruling so play can continue without dramatically effecting the flow of the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

With the DM is final arbiter rule 0, they can make a decision there and then without the need of getting everyone on board and play can continue.

Continue with a canker of resentment for the entitled guy who wants to always have his own way without input from anyone else who shouldn't be in that position in the first place.