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

[Thomas Shey]

Right?

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

Fair. I should have at least gone back and read your OP.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

By your definition, there is accountability as the players can abandon the DM's game. In games I play, there are no rules that bind a DM as rule 0 overrides all other rules.

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?

I think you might have misread what I was replying to and thus my response. I said that if a DM has a tight session 0 filter on players coming in, it would be shocking if most players don't side with the DM. All of my players believe in rule 0. They wouldn't play without it. Thus if a new player came in, despite my giving the a session 0 packet explaining rule 0, and that player started causing problems, I would expect my fellow players to side with the DM. My experience is just that.


Just as an aside....it is kind of annoying that we can't see what the original person was replying to as that would help clear up confusion. It might though make our threads pretty bloated so there is that too.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Dragonborn, tieflings, goliaths, etc are newer to D&D so I would not make the assumption that they are available.

How long do we have to wait for them to no longer be 'new'? Dragonborn and Teiflings have been core for 15 years and in the game longer with tieflings being from the 90's. Goliaths have been around for 20.

 

[Oofta]

I appreciate your effort to be congenial.


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.

It's an adventure aimed at kids with a simplified set of rules. Since we just got a new PHB and DMG and this doesn't appear in either, it only applies to this specific adventure. I don't see any shift, although I agree there was no reason to resurrect/redefine anything.

On the other hand ... it's always come down to people agreeing to continue to play the game together even if some people are agreeing to compromise and accept some things they don't care for. It doesn't override any of the other guidance in the core books. There's no real change here that I can see. Players have always been free to suggest different house rules or changes, but when it comes to the rules of the game and world building the DM still makes the final call. The adventure simply doesn't go into that level of detail.

 

[Mort]

How long do we have to wait for them to no longer be 'new'? Dragonborn and Teiflings have been core for 15 years and in the game longer with tieflings being from the 90's. Goliaths have been around for 20.

Tabaxi have been around since 1981 (granted not as a "playable race") and are still given the side eye - so it might be a while!

Personally I had a tabaxi, tiefling and dragonborn in the same group. The players were a little surprised when their attempt to sneak into a Scarlett Brotherhood enclave went sideways!

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

Two of my players were arguing over a mechanic earlier in the year. They both offered their perspectives at the table and once I had a clear understanding of each other's arguments and how I perceived it should work for the setting and basing it on consistency with similar mechanics I made a call for the table.

Was the one player unhappy for a short while - probably. Maybe another time, like today I agreed with him. Earlier in the week I let the players propose refinements to our initiative system and the same player above did and I asked if anyone else had objections/suggestions. The group conversed for a short while and in the end we adopted his changes.

There are other times where I myself will disagree with a player regarding a mechanic. I may hear him out, the table will offer input and a decision will be made. Sometimes I rule in favour of the player, sometimes not.
I'm there to ensure the game is consistent for our table, perceived weaknesses in the system are fixed and that the game remains challenging (i.e. exciting/fun)

Those in this thread that take issue with the above can be content that my table is pretty happy with their proudly Viking Hat wearing DM.

Have I made mistakes along the way - for sure. I'm not perfect (far from it) and my table is ok with that.

 

[Greg K]

I've seen lesser extremes of the above, as well, the DM SHOULD have a love for his world, but they should also have a love for the PCs interacting with and messing it up!

As a DM that pre-establishes a lot about the setting (species, cultures, deities, etc.) I will agree that the above is bad. I love when the actions of players impact the campaign. One memorable example was when the players, inadvertently, started a war between a theocracy and the dwarves whom had been refugees in the theocracy. It took me by surprise and was awesome.

In all my years of gaming, I have only experienced anything similar to a GM tied to keeping their setting intact once play started. In both instances, however, the GM was tied to the pre-conceived storyline they imagined.
One instance was a LARP during my brief time LARPing and my character took out the "big bad", but the assistant Storyteller returned to tell me that the head Storyteller was disallowing it, because it was "bad for the story.
The second instance was a very inexperienced DM, whom introduced a random encounter on the first session and kept us dealing with the same random encounter for multiple sessions. Later, I found out that DM decided to elevate it to a full side "adventure", because he thought we would have fun killing waves of orcs despite it being unrelated to the adventure he told us he was running. He had become tied to this new "story" he imagined and had not noticed players were commenting on being bored- even after two players of the five players refused to return while he was DM.
I only returned, because the DM was a relative and I wanted to give him feedback and a chance to improve while the other two players (whom were not DMs) wanted to give him a chance to improve.

 

[Lanefan]

Is the DM willing to have a sincere conversation about "the choices available in that setting"? Because if not, I don't feel I am being respected as a player. It's okay if we walk away realizing that the game just won't work for one reason or another. But a DM who flatly says, "You WILL play X, Y, or Z, and you WILL like it, or you WILL leave" is a butthole.

When I spend a year designing a setting and determining (among many other things) the various cultures and creatures etc. that exist there, by the time it gets to the point of presenting it to prospective players and inviting them to join those things are locked in and nailed down. Here's the playable species (the seven from 1e, unless I decide I've seen enough Gnomes for a while and ban them), here's the basics of the setting, here's the culture of the starting area - let's roll 'em up and drop the puck!

And while you might call it a lack of respect that I don't offer you more choices, the flip side is that your request-demand-insistence that there be more choices shows a lack of respect for the work I've already put in...which doesn't exactly get us off to a promising start.

 

[Emerikol]

As a DM that pre-establishes a lot about the setting (species, cultures, deities, etc.) I will agree that is bad as I love when the actions of players impact the campaign. One memorable example was when the players, inadvertently, started a war between a theocracy and the dwarves whom had been refugees in the theocracy. It took me by surprise and was awesome.

I'm agreeing with your original post. Just adding my two cents.

The players playing the characters are part of the setting. I want them to impact the world. I am traditional so they are in a world that is moving around them as well. I don't think that has anything necessarily to do with a love for the setting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Two of my players were arguing over a mechanic earlier in the year. They both offered their perspectives at the table and once I had a clear understanding of each other's arguments and how I perceived it should work for the setting and basing it on consistency with similar mechanics I made a call for the table.

Was the one player unhappy for a short while - probably. Maybe another time, like today I agreed with him. Earlier in the week I let the players propose refinements to our initiative system and the same player above did and I asked if anyone else had objections/suggestions. The group conversed for a short while and in the end we adopted his changes.

There are other times where I myself will disagree with a player regarding a mechanic. I may hear him out, the table will offer input and a decision will be made. Sometimes I rule in favour of the player, sometimes not.
I'm there to ensure the game is consistent for our table, perceived weaknesses in the system are fixed and that the game remains challenging (i.e. exciting/fun)

Those in this thread that take issue with the above can be content that my table is pretty happy with their proudly Viking Hat wearing DM.

Have I made mistakes along the way - for sure. I'm not perfect (far from it) and my table is ok with that.

All very lovely, but as I've said before, there's no reason that has to be the guy running the game, nor a single person at all, and all defenses of it either add up to assumptions players can't make unselfish decisions, desire for speed over everything else, or simply appeals to tradition.