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

[FrozenNorth]

Gygax would have disagreed, but I haven't seen anyone espouse that opinion nor have I seen it in a book for a long time.

Gygax was wrong about a bunch of things, that included. I’m not typing this on a Turing machine, despite the fact that Alan Turing is one of the fathers of computing.

 

[Velderan]

Yeah, I've seen spite worlds multiple times.

"Bob plays X all the time, I don't like X, so in this world, I'm banning X so I don't have to see X. I do not care about Bob's preferences except where they mildly annoy me'.

Then when called on it, this suddenly becomes some kind of artistic vision.

And yet, for all my hate of gnomes and what D&D has done to those wonderful friendly earth spirits and through them the concept of magical technology, I never banned them from any but my first, error-riddled game.

My general style is to be upfront about it and people are free to choose to play or not. I cannot run a game if I am not invested and motivated. I will send people a 1 page document that details any default assumptions, the style of the game, and the starting area. It is player choice.

I generally have an idea of what kind of campaign I'm aiming for when I toss an idea out to the group I play with and part of that is knowing the players' tastes in material, but at the end of the day I am generally more interested in them having a fun character they'll enjoy and roleplay well to forcing them to play something they are indifferent or worse towards. But my gaming is more about the social aspect and the group I run games for generally will play whatever nonsense I come up with so it hasn't been an issue yet.

As I said before, some people just shouldn't game together.

 

[FrozenNorth]

My general style is to be upfront about it and people are free to choose to play or not. I cannot run a game if I am not invested and motivated. I will send people a 1 page document that details any default assumptions, the style of the game, and the starting area. It is player choice.

As a DM, I can be heavily invested and motivated in a game even if I don’t 100% get my way on everything.

Earlier, someone gave the example of a tabaxi PC. Even if my plan for the world didn’t include tabaxi, it seems to me that I wouldn’t be justified in saying that because of 1 tabaxi I am no longer motivated or interested in the campaign.

 

[Belen]

It's broader, but banning PH species is red flag 0.

This is one area where we disagree. They have added species to the PHB over time so I fully support people who want to run a more traditional D&D experience so if someone does not want Tieflings, Dragonborn, Goliaths, Orcs, or Aasimars, then I am fine with it.

Personally, I really dislike Dragonborn although I have added them as a Lizardfolk-variant that are rare.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Plenty of people are directly arguing against the 'and' part in favor of just the DM getting to decide period and the only recourse for players being not to play with the DM.


It's broader, but banning PH species is red flag 0. One guy who is by definition as a PC is a super special weirdo, in a world of mad wizards and portals, will apparently destroy all of a setting's integrity somehow.

But I've seen things like vetoing player actions because 'your character won't do that', and of course the classic uneven on the fly rulings just to get an outcome they want. All of which should be a table choice, not one guy.

So if the GM doesn't want to run a particular game a particular way, and the players do (and none of them step up to GM), the GM should just capitulate and run the game the players want? How would that be a good game for anyone? The GM has to enjoy what they're doing.

And while I absolutely agree that the GM should have no say in what the player decides for their PC to do, that only completely applies once active play begins. I believe in the right to offer a curated setting.

And for the record, I do not accept that PCs are super special weirdos. The only thing special about them is that our camera happens to be pointed at them. There's nothing they can do that a similarly talented and skilled NPC couldn't.

 

[Belen]

As a DM, I can be heavily invested and motivated in a game even if I don’t 100% get my way on everything.

Earlier, someone gave the example of a tabaxi PC. Even if my plan for the world didn’t include tabaxi, it seems to me that I wouldn’t be justified in saying that because of 1 tabaxi I am no longer motivated or interested in the campaign.

Sure, if the player was willing to spend time adding them to the setting, accounting for their species history, their culture, gods, place and civilization. If they felt so that strongly about a species that they will do the work, then I am good.

Generally, I will work with players if they invest and do the work. If I am left to come up with it all, then different story.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is one area where we disagree. They have added species to the PHB over time so I fully support people who want to run a more traditional D&D experience so if someone does not want Tieflings, Dragonborn, Goliaths, Orcs, or Aasimars, then I am fine with it.

I think if someone wants a traditional experience, you can't force that on the other players. You need to get people on board because there's going to be other non-trad things the players are going to want if they want non-trad species.

Personally, I really dislike Dragonborn although I have added them as a Lizardfolk-variant that are rare.

I just made actual half dragons because I'm tried of WotC's 'now shut up' PC species. If someone wants to play one, I'm not going to say no, but I'd rather have provide an alternative. Probably going to have to do actual angel folk too. Tiefling and goliath seem to actually work for what they're supposed to be luckily.

I find it weird to disallow orc if you're just going to allow horcs though. It's like saying you can't have ketchup, but here's some tomato paste, sugar and vinegar blended to that patented Heinz 57 color.

 

[Oofta]

As a DM, I can be heavily invested and motivated in a game even if I don’t 100% get my way on everything.

Earlier, someone gave the example of a tabaxi PC. Even if my plan for the world didn’t include tabaxi, it seems to me that I wouldn’t be justified in saying that because of 1 tabaxi I am no longer motivated or interested in the campaign.

Again, I have a persistent world, one that has been active for decades. If I created a new world for every campaign I may have a different opinion. I know how the different species react to each other and their place in the world. If player wants a halfling PC, I know things about their standing in the worlds, their culture, and how different people will generally react to halflings and why. I've been in FR games where we had a turtle person, a dragon person, a cat person, a bunny person, a half fiend. I simply couldn't take the game seriously.

If that isn't important to you, so be it. If you make that a red line of not playing in my campaign? That's okay I have plenty of players. I'm just doing the best I can to run a campaign that will work for the majority of people. I will never be able to run a game that will work for every single individual, no DM can.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What does that have to do with what I've been saying? I agree, we used to have bad DMing advice. I don't see anything like that in the current version of the rules.

What specific rules in the current version of the game leads to bad DMing?

You said : you fail to see how the formulation of rule zero could have an impact on bad DMs.

It can. First, you keep repeating the canard that bad DMs are rare, therefore we don’t need to take them into consideration when providing advice.

This is incorrect. We were all bad DMs at one point (when we started), so we all could, and in fact did benefit from advice like « it’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as the change is more fun for everyone ».

Second, the formulation of rule zero isn’t just for bad DMs. Good advice is good, even if we already know it. We’re human, and sometimes a refresher helps keep the important stuff top of mind.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So if the GM doesn't want to run a particular game a particular way, and the players do (and none of them step up to GM), the GM should just capitulate and run the game the players want? How would that be a good game for anyone? The GM has to enjoy what they're doing.

If they want to run for that group, then they should actually discuss things with the group like adults and come to some sort of understanding. Collaborative game is collaborative. And if they're going to sulk and let the game suffer if they don't get their precise way... maybe just don't DM at all because that person does not have a good temperament for doing a good job.

And while I absolutely agree that the GM should have no say in what the player decides for their PC to do, that only completely applies once active play begins. I believe in the right to offer a curated setting.

I find curated setting to be anathema to collaborative play if it's curated by the one guy.

And for the record, I do not accept that PCs are super special weirdos. The only thing special about them is that our camera happens to be pointed at them. There's nothing they can do that a similarly talented and skilled NPC couldn't.

They still are super special weirdos. They're being controlled by essential aberrant outsiders as part of a narrative that would not exist without them. They actively get more powerful through murder and theft. They are granted a will separate from the will that commands the entire rest of the world.

And that's before we get into the ways they have been inherently mechanically different at all times except for then years in the 00's.