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

[Mort]

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?

 

[Hussar]

It means exactly what it says. If everyone at the table is happy with a change, then do it. If the change is not making the table happy, don’t do it.

Seems pretty spot on to me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Q: Does it mean rules changes must be unanimous?
A: "if everyone agrees to change the rules"
It seems pretty clear to me.

I think that it would only cause issues among those who like to argue minutia (so, you know, most of us here).

But IME outside of places like here, not much trouble.

 

[Azzy]

I think it's fine.

 

[Lanefan]

Q: Does it mean rules changes must be unanimous?
A: "if everyone agrees to change the rules"
It seems pretty clear to me.

I think that it would only cause issues among those who like to argue minutia (so, you know, most of us here).

And most of the players I've ever met, though more so in days of old than now.

I remember most of the 1980s disappearing under discussions and arguments over proposed rule changes.

 

[Mort]

Interesting. So far, very positively received.

To be clear, I don't have any issue with it being more collaborative (though it's certainly a different take). I just think it's a bit vague as to good application, bad application, etc.

Mostly because I'm not a fan of changing the rules to wily nilly, as changes tend to have ripple effects and unintended results.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

To be clear, I don't have any issue with it being more collaborative (though it's certainly a different take). I just think it's a bit vague as to good application, bad application, etc.

Mostly because I'm not a fan of changing the rules to wily nilly, as changes tend to have ripple effects and unintended results.

That's why it's good to get buy-in from everyone at the table. You would be someone who would probably tend to either be skeptical of rule changes or want a great deal of specificity about what's changing, how, and how broad-reaching those changes would be. And that's fine -- your comfort at the table is just as important as everyone else's.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And most of the players I've ever met, though more so in days of old than now.

Yeah, same. We argued a lot in Highschool, and probably not much less in our 20's, but both my group (in spite of being a bunch of social misfits) and the "casual" and "new" gamers at my shop - everyone I play with these days, mostly shrugs and goes with whatever anyone suggests, if it's not off the rails, and if it IS, and anyone says "No", then the person who suggested it backs down. I haven't had a good pedantic argument (outside of here on ENWorld for AGES. (Maybe my need for it is why I "hang out" here!)

I mean, I argue stupid stuff with my wife all the time, but not about GAMING!

I remember most of the 1980s disappearing under discussions and arguments over proposed rule changes.

Yup. Those were the days! (I'm mostly kidding, I actually really prefer the laid-back gaming of today, but obviously I can't entirely give up the arguing, or I wouldn't be HERE).

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Hell yeah. Cooperative game played for fun. No Kings, No Crowns.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That's why it's good to get buy-in from everyone at the table. You would be someone who would probably tend to either be skeptical of rule changes or want a great deal of specificity about what's changing, how, and how broad-reaching those changes would be. And that's fine -- your comfort at the table is just as important as everyone else's.

Yeah, it seems to me to be one of those "problems" that sorts itself out. If anyone is particularly skeptical or hates any particular rules suggestion - then they get what they want. As long as everyone is being actually reasonable (and that's kind of the whole point) then everyone who's also being reasonable will give in.