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

[Thomas Shey]

I am really not sure what you are suggesting. A split in agreement is not what I am talking about really. I think that is easy, but it should be discussed at session 0 how each group wants to handle such disagreements.

I'm suggesting rules decisions should be group decisions, not unitary GM decisions, and that fact itself shouldn't be just decided by the GM. It should be taken as a given. (And before someone wants to wave around "but what about on the fly decisions, we can't be taking time to hash them out!", it takes all of five seconds to have everyone sign off on a decision or not, and if you can't get at least half of them to do so, they obviously don't think time is as important as you do).

 

[Oofta]

I'm suggesting rules decisions should be group decisions, not unitary GM decisions, and that fact itself shouldn't be just decided by the GM. It should be taken as a given. (And before someone wants to wave around "but what about on the fly decisions, we can't be taking time to hash them out!", it takes all of five seconds to have everyone sign off on a decision or not, and if you can't get at least half of them to do so, they obviously don't think time is as important as you do).

If you think it only takes 5 seconds for people to come to a decision, you have yet to meet my group.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And now I've jumped down the rabbit hole of looking up what it most commonly means.

One I found interesting was lack of strong disagreement. In any case it points out the wide space between majority rule and unanimity.

Its definitely a word that has had some serious linguistic drift over time, though you have to look at what "strong disagreement" means there (usually its more about numbers than degree; if you have 500 people being consulted on something, of which 400 agree, 96 don't have a strong opinion, and 4 are hopping up and down mad about it, it'll still probably be described as having consensus, because as numbers get larger, there's always those guys).

But I maintain that if people want to use unanimity, that's what they should use.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm suggesting rules decisions should be group decisions, not unitary GM decisions, and that fact itself shouldn't be just decided by the GM. It should be taken as a given. (And before someone wants to wave around "but what about on the fly decisions, we can't be taking time to hash them out!", it takes all of five seconds to have everyone sign off on a decision or not, and if you can't get at least half of them to do so, they obviously don't think time is as important as you do).

I think houserules should be in session 0 and presented to the group. They can comment and the DM could modify but in the end the DM has final say.

On the spot decision in my view should not be an argument. If you think the DM rolled the wrong dice or did some mechanical mistake then by all means bring it up. If it is a standard DM adjudication then leave it alone. Having a big argument that in the end the DM will decide anyway is not fruitful. If you want to make a reasoned argument at some later time when no other players time is being wasted then do so. In the end though the DM still has final say.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you think it only takes 5 seconds for people to come to a decision, you have yet to meet my group.

I've got indecisive people too, but its not hard to go "Do people want to go with this or something else?" People who can't decide that one in five seconds don't care all that much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think houserules should be in session 0 and presented to the group. They can comment and the DM could modify but in the end the DM has final say.

On the spot decision in my view should not be an argument. If you think the DM rolled the wrong dice or did some mechanical mistake then by all means bring it up. If it is a standard DM adjudication then leave it alone. Having a big argument that in the end the DM will decide anyway is not fruitful. If you want to make a reasoned argument at some later time when no other players time is being wasted then do so. In the end though the DM still has final say.

You keep returning to "having a big argument". The only time that should occur is if the majority of the group disagrees, and if that's the case, then I think they've said they think it needs a big argument, and frankly, the fact the GM doesn't think so shouldn't be the deciding factor.

You seem to be assuming I'm suggesting the GM should be able to "decide anyway". I'm not. If that's not clear, I don't know how clearer I can make it.

 

[Emerikol]

You keep returning to "having a big argument". The only time that should occur is if the majority of the group disagrees, and if that's the case, then I think they've said they think it needs a big argument, and frankly, the fact the GM doesn't think so shouldn't be the deciding factor.

You seem to be assuming I'm suggesting the GM should be able to "decide anyway". I'm not. If that's not clear, I don't know how clearer I can make it.

You've never had one player who just won't let something go? I've never had an entire group arguing against me. It is almost always one player or sometimes two.

Edit:
In my games, I don't reward bad behavior. A big argument would be bad behavior. If in the end arguing is a fruitless exercise then they will argue less. I did see that over time. Of course you might argue that teenagers by nature are more argumentative but I'd also argue I was not as strong a DM as I was when I got older. I just don't have the patience for it anymore.

 

[Oofta]

I've got indecisive people too, but its not hard to go "Do people want to go with this or something else?" People who can't decide that one in five seconds don't care all that much.

What can I say, I don't see how uninformed opinions are particularly useful and most people at the table barely know the rules for their own characters.

We're just never going to agree on this. The DM as referee is the better alternative. That's not saying the DM shouldn't listen but the only person guaranteed to be attending any given session is the DM and the game has to work for them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You've never had one player who just won't let something go? I've never had an entire group arguing against me. It is almost always one player or sometimes two.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that a GM should probably have a 1.5 vote for tiebreaking. That pretty much deals with that situation.

On the other hand, if two players think it should go one way, the GM thinks it should go another, and no one else cares, I see no particular reason the GM should just get to win that one. If its the same two operating as a team constantly, and no one else ever wants to get involved (even to back the GM up) I think there group has got a lot bigger problems than anything related to rules decisions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What can I say, I don't see how uninformed opinions are particularly useful and most people at the table barely know the rules for their own characters.

There's your problem right there. And if they're genuinely uniformed, nothing stops them from sitting out the question.

We're just never going to agree on this. The DM as referee is the better alternative. That's not saying the DM shouldn't listen but the only person guaranteed to be attending any given session is the DM and the game has to work for them.

"Work for them" and "needs every decision to go there way" aren't synonyms. If it is for someone, I think there's a problem right there.