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

[Mort]

If I do not feel strongly about it, then I will go with the group.

Now, there have been times when the players research some of the online power builds that many have said are technically correct but I say no because the cheese is strong.

I have a player who used to do this (I remember he even tried a CoDZilla build back in our 3e days). I'd always just let him.

But here's the thing, most of these builds are ivory tower builds that don't survive contact with a "real" campaign, they're just too focused or specific. Or they take way too long to get online.

The only time I've encountered truly munchkin/horrible builds was when we expressly did some high level one shots to stress test the system. But since I was expecting them and munchkined out the scenario/monsters it wasn't a problem (and was actually really fun to let loose!)

 

[Thomas Shey]

IME it only takes one player to create a big argument.

Its not any more of a problem in this scenario than normally however. The person starts to argue, you look around at the rest of the group say "What do you feel?" and if no one else gets on his side, you shut it down unless you like the argument. I've mentioned that repeatedly.

And yet, in the end it still always comes down to DM decides.

And as I've said, doesn't have to. That's just people's expectations.

 

[grankless]

I would love for some of the people in this thread to go play a GMless game like Orbital or Dream Askew or For the Queen just to experience something outside of the strict, regimented idea that there must be a GM or that sole authority must be present in the game at all.

 

[Oofta]

I would love for some of the people in this thread to go play a GMless game like Orbital or Dream Askew or For the Queen just to experience something outside of the strict, regimented idea that there must be a GM or that sole authority must be present in the game at all.

Different games make different assumptions with different rules and approaches.

It's really condescending to tell people we just don't understand the concept because we have a different preference.

 

[Lanefan]

Its not any more of a problem in this scenario than normally however. The person starts to argue, you look around at the rest of the group say "What do you feel?" and if no one else gets on his side, you shut it down unless you like the argument. I've mentioned that repeatedly.

The bolded rather strongly hints at some DM authority, if I-as-DM am the one who can shut it down.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think we all need to remember things are not as binary in reality as it may seem to some people on this thread.
If a DM makes a ruling that is so egregious and against the ideas/proposals of the table, they aren't gonna last long.
I imagine it is very common practice to have player input and for everyone to explain their reasoning for their preferred choice.

When the DM is forced to make a decision (in the case where its not unanimous which is the ideal) they are not making it from a position of master or dictator but rather from the position as referee.

 

[clearstream]

I may be coming at this from a very experienced DMing perspective who has seen a lot of things. So a brand new DM probably should explore a bit because you don't know what you like until you experience it. My theory though is that a DM will like to DM the types of games he likes to play in as a player. So playing with a whole bunch of different DMs might be a quicker way to understand playstyle.

I picture that experienced DMs can remain flexible, and certainly agree with the advice to explore different styles of play. Mastery can take practice so joining games run by others lets one benefit from their skill. And play is an experience not a record or instruction manual, so one must play to really know a style.

The problem with roleplaying is that it is not a single game. Playstyle really represents a type of game. I'm not saying every single detail but overarching style. And I do like to play the game I play and I like it a lot more than other playstyles. Since D&D even for a player is a big time commitment compared to say a board game, I think it makes sense to find your groove if you will.

It seems reasonable to say that different people have different tastes. It seems like over-fixating if on discovering I relish apples, I refuse to try any other fruit at all.

Some of my players have become DMs and when they do they implement some of their ideas on the game. Most are playing the same playstyle though one guy did drift more toward neo-trad than trad. Could I play in one of their games? Yes. Would I ever think any of them are as good as mine? No. If I did, I'd switch up my game to match theirs more.

Ones taste may include both snails and oysters. Which is to say, they could be thought of not as better or worse but as alternatives.

These forums are fun places to debate philosophy about game design. As I have said many times, anyone can play how they like. I am not saying my playstyle is the best for everyone. It's just the best for me. But I will defend it here and everywhere to those who want to make it out to be bad or not fun. I have literally decades of proof to the contrary.

I hope it is clear that I'm not aiming to characterise anyone's approach as "bad or not fun". My interests here are debating philosophy, proposing notions to see how they stand up, and learning from other viewpoints.

 

[pemerton]

I mean, is it that hard to subtract Thaco the Clown?

I dunno. If THACO the Clown is a tabaxi, I've heard that once they scratch on your door there's no getting rid of them . . .

 

[pemerton]

In any case it points out the wide space between majority rule and unanimity.

There is a lot of discussion in this in the literature on democratic theory.

 

[pemerton]

There is nothing unique about playing a dragonborn that I can't replicate RP wise with another race.

I dunno, that seems fairly dismissive of the players' vision for their PC.