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

[Thomas Shey]

I think that is a good point and a type of middle ground I was talking about that @EzekielRaiden doesn't seem to see / feel. If you think final authority = absolute authority that is going to color your opinion / experiences quite a bit.

I have to say in this context limiting it to the former does not particularly change my feelings about it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What are these issues in your mind? What qualifies?

Because man, I'm here running a game kicking in doors, killing monsters, spending the loot, and moving on. "Earning trust" is a whole lot more adulting that I really couldnt be bothered with.

Some examples of what loses trust, thematic and mechanic:

1. Mocking preferences in general. Naturally, I have a stronger reaction when my own preferences are mocked (I suffer the human condition of feeling more upset when something hurts me than when it hurts someone else, but I'm still upset either way), but this is a great way to lose a lot of trust.
2. Breaking the rules, or treating the rules as an enemy to be eliminated when possible. I know, I know, this is a thread about Rule 0. But the rules exist in order for us to have a common ground to start from. If the rules keep shifting under my feet, it's hard to trust that the final result is going to work out.
3. Doing something that seems pretty hinky (say, taking away the party's stuff in the middle of the night, without letting us respond), and then following that up with some equivalent of "don't you trust me?" Because that's basically saying I'm never allowed to be concerned about anything ever, and I'm not okay with that. Trust is a two-way street, and someone dismissing any lack of trust with (effectively) "you should be trusting me and you aren't, so you're the problem" is not acceptable--ever.
4. Declaring you have absolute authority. Already covered why I have a problem with that.
5. Being capricious with consequences or results or processes. Some things have no rules, or go beyond what the rules talk about. This isn't so much "Rule 0", just that designers aren't omniscient. I have to believe that I can learn how to play better. Fudging is a good example here. Fudging ruins my ability to learn how to play--because the consequences aren't determined by my actions, they're determined by whether you like (or at least don't dislike) the consequences of my actions.
6. Concealing dodgy stuff, but especially railroading or mistakes. Both things tell me that I can't be sure you will be honest to me as a person (note: NPCs tell lies all the time, that's not you the DM being dishonest to me the player, that's B'Beg the Court Vizier lying to Joe McFighter or whatever.) I can't be sure that what you claim is the case really is.

Things that earn trust and enthusiasm:

1. Genuinely listening to concerns and addressing them. If there's a trust issue, for example the aforementioned "robbed in the night and PCs couldn't prevent it" thing, explaining as much as you can without giving important things away, and offering to take responsibility and make amends if things don't work out. This shows accountability.
2. Always being respectful, especially if you feel you haven't been respected. It's easy to be respectful to people who are already respectful to you. "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6:32, NIV) This shows respect.
3. Soliciting feedback, especially on things you weren't sure were successful, and striving to implement that feedback going forward. This shows that whether or not the players are having a good time matters.
4. Giving space for others' contributions to shine. Frex, if there's a wizard in the party who graduated from a Wizard school, asking the Wizard what the name of that school is, roughly where it would be located (helping them pick a spot if they aren't sure of the geography and demographics), its reputation, maybe some professors there, etc. This shows that the players' input really does matter in a small but concrete way--that the world is "ours" in at least some way.
5. During the pitch and/or Session Zero phases, articulating why you want to include X, Y, and Z and exclude A, B, and C. Explaining why the presence or absence of things will make a better experience. I very very much understand that DM enthusiasm is vital, but you need to show me that spark yourself. Just "I'm enthusiastic about it" is...not really selling me on the game. This shows that it's not the Jane Doe DM Show, but rather that we're all in this together.
6. If something goes wrong and you realize it's gone wrong, making amends. The best way to do so is diegetically, of course, but diegetic fixes aren't always available. Mistakes happen; admitting to them and fixing them is a good thing.
7. Being open to alternative approaches--in both directions. That is, both being open to having your own ideas re-interpreted in a way that the player might like better (even if not that much has actually changed), and being open to proposing re-interpretations of player ideas that you like better (again, even if not that much changes.) Former: you can't be a dragonborn, but you can be a human infected with a degenerative disease that is transforming you into a dragonoid-person (start off with human mechanics, change over time). Latter: Only Clerics exist in this world, but my Cleric can be the person who gets the ball rolling on founding the very first Paladin order. This shows that we are peers in the discussion, rather than one person controlling everything and one person meekly submitting.

 

[Mort]

If its just an assertation "People can change things" that fine, but also pretty far from how Rule 0 has traditionally been presented.

Right?

My whole impetus for the thread was - group centered Rule 0, well that's certainly new and different!

 

[Emerikol]

I think we all should agree, and do mostly, that if you and your group is having fun that is a win.

I think we tend to all live in our own bubbles a bit and can be shocked when we see radical departures from the way we've always known it. It is a game. No one can force you to play a game. It has to be something fun or you wouldn't do it. I'm old and well entrenched in my ways. I believe my groups have a lot of fun and have high expectations. I've been told in years past that if I only played a totally different way I'd have more fun. I think most of the time for an experienced player that isn't true. We've found our way. For a new player, I recommend trying new stuff until you find what clicks for you.

Originally: The discussion was about WOTC's decision to redefine rule 0. I think that decision was bad even if you don't like the traditional rule 0. Why confuse everyone? The world over knows what rule 0 has been for fifty years. Why redefine it now. Just drop it from the rules if the game designers don't like it. But giving an entirely different rule the name rule 0 is not good. It's confusing.

 

[Oofta]

As has been said, absolute authority and final authority are different things. No one has absolute authority at a game table IMO, but I have no issue with final authority.

For myself I'll just refer back to how the DMG states it (bold added) " When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules. ... The DM creates the world where the game’s adventures take place. ... D&D is about telling a story as a group, so let the other players contribute through the words and deeds of their characters. "

I will never tell a player what their PC thinks or what actions they take unless there's magic involved. When it comes to rules? Yes I make the final call. Doesn't mean we can't discuss it, if we disagree I think we should. World building? Yes, I have the final say, although of course people can always make suggestions. It's not really about authority to me, because both players and DM have equal authority based on their role in the game.

 

[Mort]

I think we all should agree, and do mostly, that if you and your group is having fun that is a win.

I think we tend to all live in our own bubbles a bit and can be shocked when we see radical departures from the way we've always known it. It is a game. No one can force you to play a game. It has to be something fun or you wouldn't do it. I'm old and well entrenched in my ways. I believe my groups have a lot of fun and have high expectations. I've been told in years past that if I only played a totally different way I'd have more fun. I think most of the time for an experienced player that isn't true. We've found our way. For a new player, I recommend trying new stuff until you find what clicks for you.

Originally: The discussion was about WOTC's decision to redefine rule 0. I think that decision was bad even if you don't like the traditional rule 0. Why confuse everyone? The world over knows what rule 0 has been for fifty years. Why redefine it now. Just drop it from the rules if the game designers don't like it. But giving an entirely different rule the name rule 0 is not good. It's confusing.

To be fair, it was presented in a supplement meant for a new and clearly young (to very young) audience. Maybe they just figured us old people wouldn't notice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Scenario: I run a game. My players all trust me. You are invited to join. You dont trust me. What happens?
This scenario has been used in this very thread.

I'm also going to point out "trust" covers at least two pieces of disconnected ground, as I do every time it comes up, because it seems important.

You can trust someone's intentions or trust someone's judgment. If I don't do the first I don't play under them (and if they show me I shouldn't, I'm done). On the other hand I don't trust anyone's judgment unlimitedly, including my own; that's one reason I reserve the right to "check they're work", and if they can't deal with that I have to revisit my assessment of them on the first grounds, too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In a game, inside a campaign setting, I don't see much difference between final authority and absolute authority.

I do.

An absolute authority does not have accountability. That's part of what makes it absolute. A final authority can still be held accountable.

The US President is the final authority on military orders. It is still--officially--military law that illegal orders must not be followed. Even if they came from the President. The US President is the final authority, Commander in Chief, but is not an absolute authority.

I'd be sad to see a DM so miss in explaining his style that most players wouldn't side with the DM.

Certainly not good. But you do believe the DM has a requirement to explain herself, yes? That they are not given infinite carte blanche simply because they are the DM, they do the work, therefore they deserve to be trusted?

 

[Emerikol]

I appreciate your effort to be congenial.

Some examples of what loses trust, thematic and mechanic:
<snip>

Things that earn trust and enthusiasm:
<snip>

I agree with some, I disagree with some, and I think you mischaracterize my playstyle in a few places.

You obviously feel strongly about your views and I feel strongly about mine. I don't think either of us should play in the others campaign. That doesn't make me dislike you other than as a D&D player in my campaign.

Getting back to the original debate though:
I don't think WOTC should have redefined a term that is 50 years old. If they don't like it, they can just drop it and use some other new term. The rule of fun or whatever. There term is likely not going to catch on anyway. I'm still going to use rule 0 here for it's traditional use.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, I'm aware your players are more like witnesses than participants. They get the privilege of witnessing events unfolding in the world you've created.

You have no idea what my games are like.