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

[Oofta]

I know. I'm not trying to convince any of you to try any of this.

You didn't answer the question I asked you, though:
What if they said "No, I'm not interested in that method because I don't think it'll work; committing to too much information up front will create problems later in play"?

Stating a question repeatedly when you've already gotten a response, even if dressed up as a hypothetical, is called sealioning.

If someone said this about heavy DM worldbuilding, what would you have to say about it?

I would say if they want advice I would suggest they start a separate thread on the topic if they wanted advice then I would drop it.

Yes, I am. For instance, the idea that allowing a player to introduce the idea of divine aid would somehow become problematic later on... that didn't happen in my 5E campaign.

So? It doesn't fit the campaign world my example was set in. A single experience in a single campaign is no proof of anything.

That players will seize any opportunity at some kind of advantage to easily bypass or obviate challenges... that doesn't happen with my players.

Then your players are different than some I've had.

EDIT: that's also not the point. I don't like your house rule that a cleric can get powers above and beyond what is provided by the class.

My repeated statements are mostly because you misread what I wrote. You keep bringing this back to preference, but that's not my issue at all.

But that's the point. It is down to preference and you don't accept that.

Other than the part where all I've done is repeat myself, I don't have any issue with what you said in the quote immediately above. I don't disagree with you at all about people having methods that work for them or not, and that they should use those they prefer.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

While looking at the educator resources over on D&D beyond, I stumbled upon WoTC's current (and free) intro adventure for new (and mostly younger) players Peril in Pinebrook.

Like the starter sets this adventure has a rules primer along with it and a decent size section on how to run the game.

Unlike the starter sets OR the current rule books - it actually mentions and defines Rule 0. From the adventure:

Rule 0. Rule 0 of D&D is simple: Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone.

Has this been defined in such a manner in any other D&D supplement? If so, I certainly haven't seen it. I find this definition too open ended for my tastes! And also overly ambiguous. Does it mean rules changes must be unanimous? Majority vote? Whatever the most charismatic person at the table is able to convince the rest of the table? To me, this definition, while well intentioned, will/can cause more issues than it solves!

Thoughts?

I feel like you're splitting hairs.

 

[Mort]

I feel like you're splitting hairs.

On a message board? Perish the thought!

But it did certainly get a lively discussion going.

 

[Mort]

I feel like you're splitting hairs.

More seriously? How so?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know. I'm not trying to convince any of you to try any of this.

You didn't answer the question I asked you, though:
What if they said "No, I'm not interested in that method because I don't think it'll work; committing to too much information up front will create problems later in play"?

If someone said this about heavy DM worldbuilding, what would you have to say about it?

I would offer good examples that work for me if they express an interest in pursuing my style. Otherwise, I'd let it go. Preferences vary, and I'm not going to keep offering to help someone with something they don't want to do.

 

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

More seriously? How so?

Eh. That's bait, but I'll bite.

Because whatever metric or method is used to come to the agreement is irrelevant to the very question you asked, and the answer to your question is contained in the question. Rule 0 is "Have fun. Change the rules to have fun as you see appropriate." it is really that simple. Not everything is various shades of gray, some things are in fact black and white. What I think is fun and what you think is fun might be two different things, which may mean we aren't playing at the same table, but ultimately each table still abides rule 0 at every session. Seeking this difference without a distinction is splitting hairs at best, or if sealioning.

A wider, more beneficial discussion may fall to what methods of meeting rule 0 are "good" or "bad", which again is subjective. I don't like games where PC's can't die, I don't find it fun, but I also don't hide rolls as the DM on principle. I find it to be less fun when I'm just told "Oh, the ogre rolled a nat 20. Take 32 points of damage because he rolled max!" rather than seeing the rolls myself. Similarly, I use a home brew rule to expand on ritual casting which is as follows:

• Ritual Casting: All spellcasting classes that can cast spells as rituals may do so without consuming a spell slot as long as the spells are prepared. The casting time for a ritual spell increases by a factor of 2 (1 round becomes 1 minute, 1 minute becomes 10 minutes, etc) or as long as the ritual specifies. Under certain conditions, they may cast ritual spells from their spell list that are not prepared.
• Druids may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared while in unspoiled nature, such as a pond or grove, or under a clear and open sky.
• Clerics may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared when they are in a place of worship or hallowed ground related to their deity or domain.
• Wizards may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared when they read directly from their spellbook.
• Bards may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared when they have an audience of one or more creatures besides themselves.
• Sorcerers may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared by expending a sorcery point.

Some may not like this rule, because it "cheapens wizards being able to ritual cast spells they haven't prepared" or because I haven't figured out a way to have Warlocks do rituals, but my players like it and use it. Other rules I use are:

• Tumbling: The "Disengage" action is being replaced by the "Tumble" check. When you attempt to move through or leave a threatened space, you may roll an acrobatics check to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. The base DC is 15 if you move at half speed (20 at full speed) increasing by 1 for each additional enemy that threatens you during the movement. If you succeed on a Tumble check, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Class features such as Rogue's Cunning Action retain the former Disengage action.

• Five Foot Step: As a movement action, you may choose to take a 5 foot step in combat. A five foot step does not provoke opportunity attacks, but it must be your only movement. A five foot step can be taken on the same round that you stand up from being prone in combat, but only after you have stood up, and is considered to be not moving for effects that require you to not have moved during a round, except channeling effects.
• Persistent Wounds: Characters who are downed in combat suffer lasting wounds which persist until a long rest. If a PC is downed in combat three times without a long rest, they succumb to these wounds and are killed out right. They may still be revived from death, but will revive with 5 stacks of exhaustion. At the completion of a long rest, all persistent wounds are healed.

Each of these rules my players have agreed to, because my players are invested in the world and the changes they provide to the game. I guarantee you that not everyone will like these rules, so they won't work for everyone, in particular players who don't want their characters to die or who dislike more mechanically intricate rules like tumbling. It is what it is, but ultimately that's a different conversation and question than what you've asked.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So you’re for players contributing setting details? To say “there’s a tavern I know of down the street here”? You don’t have concerns about that?

Unlike the god thing, that is not a setting detail I would have concerns about. But if what you're actually asking is if I would have concerns about player adding setting details, that would depend on the procedures and limitations that exist in the game regarding the setting detail adding, and your example does not elucidate on that.

Now personally I probably would handle player involvement in this style of setting details a bit differently. For example if the party was heading to the home town of one of the characters (and we would not have seen this town in the game before) I might, well before the game, ask the player if their character had particular acquaintances or other noteworthy connections to the town they would want to offer some input on. Then I would have time to craft those elements as part of the whole as I would plan the town.

See the quote from Lanefan below, which you liked.

Yes I did, but I don't feel you quite grasp what was said.

This depends on the goal of play. I disagree with you entirely about the practice “being stupid”. I think the idea that players will immediately jump on any possible advantage and seek to exploit it to win, while it may be relevant to you and your game, isn’t a concern for many.

So what you're not getting, is that it is not about "exploits," that sounds bad and negative, something you are not really supposed to do. But I fully agree with @Lanefan that if the players are given a tool, then using that tool becomes a legit gameplay strategy. And that is not a bad thing, but if you don't want the sort of game where that strategy is used, then don't give the players the tool!

And there absolutely are games where extensive player setting control is expected, and its use is a valid strategy. But those games usually have mechanics built to support that, and D&D really doesn't. So I don't think it is a particularly good fit for this game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So would you say that the DM’s ideas therefore take precedence over player ideas?

And to make it clear… do you prefer it that way? Do you think it must work that way?

For certain sort of gameplay it must work this way. I have used this example before, but it is still apt. If I play a detective in a murder mystery, then for me to have genuine agency to solve the murder, the GM's ideas about the murderer, clues and the course of events must take precedence. We can create a murder-mystery-like story by the player of the detective being able to invent these things (perhaps with successful rolls given this is a game) but it won't be solving a murder mystery.

This is why I feel this whole attitude of GM vs players where the GM is seen as maliciously denying the setting authority from the players seems utterly bizarre. That is not at all what is going on. This division of roles exists to make certain sort of gameplay possible.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So would you say that the DM’s ideas therefore take precedence over player ideas?

not so much that GM's ideas take precidence per-se but that player ideas ought to be incorporated or vetoed through the GM as the one person who is aware of the full worldbuilding, for the virtue of preserving consistency and preventing contradiction.

And to make it clear… do you prefer it that way? Do you think it must work that way

i do not think it MUST work that way i personally however, do PREFER that it works that way.

 

[Mort]

Eh. That's bait, but I'll bite.

Because whatever metric or method is used to come to the agreement is irrelevant to the very question you asked, and the answer to your question is contained in the question. Rule 0 is "Have fun. Change the rules to have fun as you see appropriate." it is really that simple. Not everything is various shades of gray, some things are in fact black and white. What I think is fun and what you think is fun might be two different things, which may mean we aren't playing at the same table, but ultimately each table still abides rule 0 at every session. Seeking this difference without a distinction is splitting hairs at best, or if sealioning.

A wider, more beneficial discussion may fall to what methods of meeting rule 0 are "good" or "bad", which again is subjective. I don't like games where PC's can't die, I don't find it fun, but I also don't hide rolls as the DM on principle. I find it to be less fun when I'm just told "Oh, the ogre rolled a nat 20. Take 32 points of damage because he rolled max!" rather than seeing the rolls myself. Similarly, I use a home brew rule to expand on ritual casting which is as follows:

• Ritual Casting: All spellcasting classes that can cast spells as rituals may do so without consuming a spell slot as long as the spells are prepared. The casting time for a ritual spell increases by a factor of 2 (1 round becomes 1 minute, 1 minute becomes 10 minutes, etc) or as long as the ritual specifies. Under certain conditions, they may cast ritual spells from their spell list that are not prepared.
• Druids may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared while in unspoiled nature, such as a pond or grove, or under a clear and open sky.
• Clerics may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared when they are in a place of worship or hallowed ground related to their deity or domain.
• Wizards may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared when they read directly from their spellbook.
• Bards may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared when they have an audience of one or more creatures besides themselves.
• Sorcerers may cast ritual spells that they have not prepared by expending a sorcery point.

Some may not like this rule, because it "cheapens wizards being able to ritual cast spells they haven't prepared" or because I haven't figured out a way to have Warlocks do rituals, but my players like it and use it. Other rules I use are:

• Tumbling: The "Disengage" action is being replaced by the "Tumble" check. When you attempt to move through or leave a threatened space, you may roll an acrobatics check to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity. The base DC is 15 if you move at half speed (20 at full speed) increasing by 1 for each additional enemy that threatens you during the movement. If you succeed on a Tumble check, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Class features such as Rogue's Cunning Action retain the former Disengage action.
• Five Foot Step: As a movement action, you may choose to take a 5 foot step in combat. A five foot step does not provoke opportunity attacks, but it must be your only movement. A five foot step can be taken on the same round that you stand up from being prone in combat, but only after you have stood up, and is considered to be not moving for effects that require you to not have moved during a round, except channeling effects.
• Persistent Wounds: Characters who are downed in combat suffer lasting wounds which persist until a long rest. If a PC is downed in combat three times without a long rest, they succumb to these wounds and are killed out right. They may still be revived from death, but will revive with 5 stacks of exhaustion. At the completion of a long rest, all persistent wounds are healed.

Each of these rules my players have agreed to, because my players are invested in the world and the changes they provide to the game. I guarantee you that not everyone will like these rules, so they won't work for everyone, in particular players who don't want their characters to die or who dislike more mechanically intricate rules like tumbling. It is what it is, but ultimately that's a different conversation and question than what you've asked.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

My initial interest in this wasn't anywhere near that deep. More just that Rule 0, has always been completely DM centric, whereas this new version is fully group focused. And that's certainly, well, new.