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

[Micah Sweet]

That would be the problem, yes.

Right now, they default understanding of 'Rule 0' is the toxic horrible one that needs to go away forever.

The one where the GM gets to make the final decision if needed when there's a dispute? I continue to be fine with that, because it doesn't mean the GM ignores player concerns (as some here seem to think).

 

[Vaalingrade]

My favorite excuse though is 'I'm doing this specific Earth-based setting that is absolutely not in Ireland, but somehow I'm not banning the daoine sidhe we call elves.'

 

[Micah Sweet]

And none of those are implied by 'master'.

Again, I know what that's supposed to mean, but in this very thread, I constantly see examples of people who are absolutely using it to imply supreme authority.

Is there a degree of authority the DM can have that doesn't fall into the category of "supreme" for you?

Serious question. I'm trying to figure out what is acceptable from your point of view.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Generally, as a DM, I would rule in favor of the 4 of 5 players. It is not complicated. It is a quick ruling, you move on, and then discuss later to see if there is final consensus.

Only so many people skip the 'discuss later' because they are the great and special 'final arbiter'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But that everyone who GMs would have the same attitude (and of course the "two player opinion/one GM opinion" question doesn't entirely go away).

Basically, barring special cases, I don't see a GM's opinion being vastly more important here than a player's. I'm willing to give them (from lack of a better term) a 1.5 vote for practical reasons (if nothing else to be a tie breaker) but see no intrinsic reasons they should have an overwhelming more weight on rules decisions than the players do (note I'm keeping this focused on that because I have no interest in getting dragged into the campaign-decisions part at this time as I consider that a more complex and not really entirely related question).

The campaign decisions part is to me far more important to determine than the rules part.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is there consensus on what on whether it means unanimous or not?

View attachment 385902
<-OED definition 1a

Its sometimes used for unanimous decision making, but that's not the more general usage: note its commonly used for things that have general agreement but not universal agreement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The campaign decisions part is to me far more important to determine than the rules part.

Feel free to talk about it then. But I'm not interested in doing so at this time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is there a degree of authority the DM can have that doesn't fall into the category of "supreme" for you?

If there wasn't why would I need the qualifier supreme?

The DM sets up the story and plays the world. They don't get to make choices for other players' characters, not ignore the will of the other players. They are a discussion leader, but shouldn't have veto power.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

That’s just wrong. DMing is a skill like any other. We were all bad DMs when we started, just like I was a terrible tennis player when I started. The vast majority of DMs get better.

Bad advice to DMs makes it less likely that they will improve. Good advice makes it more likely they will improve.

The new rule 0 formulation is good advice, and you don’t have to be a bad DM to benefit from it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If there wasn't why would I need the qualifier supreme?

The DM sets up the story and plays the world. They don't get to make choices for other players' characters, not ignore the will of the other players. They are a discussion leader, but shouldn't have veto power.

What does that mean? Are you advocating for more player control than making decisions for their PCs? That's all I want on the player side for a D&D-style game.