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

[Thomas Shey]

There's a balance to strike. If the rules change constantly, or even just too often, you're not really playing a game anymore, you're in Eternal Beta Test, which suuuuuuucks as a player. If the rules are utterly inflexible and never adapt to anything ever for any reason, that too leads to problems.

Another way of saying this is that your "If needed" is doing some incredibly heavy lifting there. If that happened more than, say, once every several months (of weekly sessions), I'd get pretty annoyed as a player that the rules weren't being consistently applied. If it happened quite regularly, e.g. multiple times a month for weekly sessions, I would be looking for a chance to have a heart to heart with the DM.

Fixing a real issue as soon as possible is a good thing. Preserving consistency and reliability is also a good thing. We must balance the needs of those two things against each other. I very much doubt there is one universal midpoint, but that midpoint shouldn't be abruptly changing all the time.

I think it also depends on how much a group is shaving a system down to their needs. Not all games come out of the can well suited to a given group (or even, honestly, as well designed as they could be). Ideally you figure this out before hand so you can work out houserules with people before you even get into it as needed, but there are always those things that look different on paper than they play out.

Some of it can, of course, also turn on how fussy you (as in both individually and a group) are, too; the degree of house ruling I bother with now compared to what I'd do in my 20's and early 30's is considerably different (of course it doesn't hurt I'm better at assessing a system by reading that I was back then, too).

 

[Belen]

Hurray! Compromise and social behavior in the day!

I guess you never experienced the epic 3.5 rules battles between members of your group that were arguing over interpretation of the rule or square placement.

Sometimes you need a person to arbitrate because people will not compromise or agree.

I do not subscribed to DM as a dictator that doe not listen or seek consensus but the title is Dungeon Master or Game Master which implies the idea behind the role in the name.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree and the Viking Hat is a straw man. Anyone can have an opinion and there are times and places to express it. During a session is not one of them.

It can be exactly the proper time to express it, when the matter is at hand and not addressing it will potentially change outcomes in a serious way. One should have some sense of how long one wants to express it and how disruptive it is, but frankly, the idea that game flow is so sacred that no interruption to address a problem is acceptable is bafflingly rigid to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't know who you are specifically talking a about, but I know of one poster here that repeatedly talks in that vein and about how they are "educating" players in the "correct" way to play.

However, they way those posts stand out (and the frequency with which they get called to task) suggest to me that such behavior really is in the minority (at least at my tables and around here).

That's partly because that poster (if its who I think) is extremely blunt about it to the point it can't be ignored, but I've seen others who seemed to share slightly milder versions of the same attitudes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally I think the GM "avenging" to the player build choices they do not approve in the game in the manner you describe is jerk behaviour.* I always try to be as upfront as possible about my limitations and houserules before the game begins, so that the players can make informed decisions. If I don't want some things to be part of the game, then they aren't and that's that, but it also means that the options that are available you're able to utilise fully and you will not be "punished" for choosing them. I think this sort of transparency is important so that everyone knows what they're signing up for and there won't be hard feelings later.

* There could be an exception if the GM was upfront about a certain species being likely to face discrimination in the setting and the player intentionally choosing to play it because they wanted to explore such a dynamic. But then it really isn't about punishing the player for wrong choices anymore, but about letting them to play the storyline they wanted.

Honestly, that whole idea is the sort of passive-aggressive "let it happen but punish them" approach that was all too common early on in the hobby; all it really teaches players is that the GM is an adversary, not a partner, and its fortunately less common now (but still rears its head in a way that shows it hasn't entirely faded).

 

[dave2008]

That's partly because that poster (if its who I think) is extremely blunt about it to the point it can't be ignored, but I've seen others who seemed to share slightly milder versions of the same attitudes.

Sure, but that is one of my points. I don't throw milder attitudes in the same boat, it seems to me that @EzekielRaiden does. This could be wrong of course, by they come of that way to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A bad DM is going to be a bad DM. If you regularly argue with DMs about rules (not saying you do) maybe the issue is not the game's approach.

Bad GMs didn't drop from heaven that way. Sometimes its about personal traits. Sometimes its about having been taught bad habits. I don't see anything useful to be had by conflating the two.

 

[Thomas Shey]

See above. There are many words in the English language that can describe the role of the DM. Authoritarian does not need to be one of them and is another way of saying the DM is a dictator.

I don't think they have to be, but when people insist on vesting ultimate decision making in them and won't even acknowledge a consensual approach can be viable, I think its asking for a dictatorial approach to be a common failure-state. Because it is virtually everywhere else in life where that's true, so I'm not sure why people should be surprised it is here.

 

[Clint_L]

Well there are campaign worlds where, pretty much everything is detailed, so no you can't play your half-Dragonborn, half-gnome, with a vampire template just because the rules say it is possible. Heck even without such detailed worlds some player preferences need crapping on, as they would ruin the campaign themes, and mood the DM had in mind.

There is nothing in the new framing of Rule 0 that says a DM cannot say no to a player, or is not the final arbiter of the game, and all you have to do is look at how DMing is explained throughout the book. Most of this conversation is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing has changed except an emphasis on keeping everyone’s enjoyment in mind (i.e. don’t be a petty tyrant).

On which note: crapping on someone’s preferences is never needed. You can politely decline without making someone feel awful.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Player choice in that case would be choosing what to play from the choices available in that setting, presented by the DM. Does choice not count for you unless it includes options the DM didn't think of or doesn't want in the setting?

I think the two examples you give there are worlds apart.