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

[Mort]

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 situation 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.

But then that player isn't a "bad" player, merely one who is interpreting a rule in their best interest (which make sense).

Look, I get what you're saying, and I don't disagree. A DM CAN stop rules squabbling with "here's how we're doing this, moving on..." and as long as their doing so in a fair manner, with the fun of the table in mind - that's the best way to go. That's part of, IMO, the DMs job.

But we were talking about a "bad" player and that's a different issue, IMO.

 

[dave2008]

To be clear I understand your concerns, but I have never been a DM like you describe, nor have I ever played with one like you describe. So your descriptions naturally seem outlandish and hyperbolic to me. That doesn't make them so, but I just wanted to explain where I am coming from.

Yeah. I think I have a very good reason to see hostility. Because it's demonstrably there.

On the other hand, do you only see the hostility? Do you see all the inclusivity and support here (on these forums) and in RPG forums and play spaces in general? I certainly do. If you do not, then I truly don't know what to think about your experience. All I can say is that I am an inclusive DM and work with my PCs to a fault really. We are out there (and in large numbers from what I have seen). Heck, when I started my 4e campaign in 2008/09 I handed the MM to players and said they could pick any sentient creature in the book and we would work together to make it work!

PS - I really hoped someone was going to pick a beholder, but no one did.

I tend to assume that when someone tells me they deserve absolute authority and zero accountability beyond me dropping the nuclear option, something is amiss. Particularly when the very same people then get up in arms about the folks who actually do drop the nuclear option and tell them they were unjustified for doing so! We had a thread just last month about that. Ask pemerton about it.

I think sometimes, it appears to me, you make the assumption of the bold statement rather than of that be 100% true. There are, IMO and IME, large gradations of DMs on that spectrum. From the outside, it appears that if someone is not 100% in agreement with your approach, you seem to believe they are 100% against it. My belief is that a lot of the hostility you see could be mostly a misunderstanding (from both sides). Of course I can't be sure of any of this, but our experiences and worries seem so divergent it feels like (to me) there must be a misunderstanding in there somewhere.

 

[Mort]

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

Ah, you're saying the DM IS the problem bad faith player.

It's certainly possible. But the fact is, the DM does have a different role/function than the other players.

Part of that function is if a rules ambiguity dispute comes up, especially mid game, it's the DMs role to make sure play continues smoothly and does not grind to a halt.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think sometimes, it appears to me, you make the assumption of the bold statement rather than of that be 100% true.

I actively observe people saying this sort of thing all the time, then have people in the same thread tell me to my face that no one ever says this stuff.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ah, you're saying the DM IS the problem bad faith player.

It's certainly possible. But the fact is, the DM does have a different role/function than the other players.

Part of that function is if a rules ambiguity dispute comes up, especially mid game, it's the DMs role to make sure play continues smoothly and does nto grind to a halt.

And the entire problem is that people take that as license to completely disregard everyone else at the table to further their desires or assert their authority.

 

[Bagpuss]

Part of that function is if a rules ambiguity dispute comes up, especially mid game, it's the DMs role to make sure play continues smoothly and does nto grind to a halt.

Which they are not empowered to do if the new unanimous Rule 0 is implemented.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Which they are not empowered to do if the new unanimous Rule 0 is implemented.

Hurray! Compromise and social behavior win the day!

 

[dave2008]

Which they are not empowered to do if the new unanimous Rule 0 is implemented.

I think that is reading to much into a "rule" that isn't even in the core books.

 

[TiQuinn]

Which they are not empowered to do if the new unanimous Rule 0 is implemented.

You’re making this sound like it’s something different than just being respectful of others at the game table and having a social contract.

 

[dave2008]

I actively observe people saying this sort of thing all the time, then have people in the same thread tell me to my face that no one ever says this stuff.

My point is that people don't tell the whole story. If a DM bans something from their games, that doesn't mean they aren't willing to work with the players in other ways. One "negative" does mean the DM has all of the "negatives."