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

[Charlaquin]

You are literally describing someone having fun.

Is he, though? He’s certainly describing someone enjoying a leisure activity, and fun can be an appropriate word to use to express that. But when that enjoyment is stemming from, say, horror, “fun” might not be the best word to use to describe it. Thats the thing about language, its made up of words that have multiple definitions, and sometimes the additional context of a sentence or paragraph can make some definitions of a word contradictory with other definitions of the same word.

 

[Demetrios1453]

My point was that there’s no viable scenario in which the rules can be changed without everyone playing the game agreeing to that change. If they compromise, it’s a given that they agree on the compromise, so that scenario is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. However, in any scenario where they don’t compromise, it’s still the case that everyone playing the game agrees to the changes. I asked if anyone could come up with a counter-example, and you said “well they could compromise.” But that’s not a counter-example at all, it’s just a nonsequitur.

The counter-example is the group disbands, or at the least one side or the other that won't agree to compromise leaves.

 

[Charlaquin]

You mean like in every edition of D&D and most RPGs, where the DM decided what the rules are?

And what of the players in those DM’s games? Were they not free to leave if the DM made a change they didn’t agree to? By making the choice to play in the game with the rules changed, were they not agreeing to play with those changes in place?

 

[Charlaquin]

That's a good point. Every time a ruling comes down from on high, and certainly every time there's an edition change, acknowledged by the IP owner or not, there are tons of people who now have to deal with changed rules they didn't agree to.

Or… agree to change those rules. Either by houseruling or by agreeing to use a different ruleset entirely. Or, by agreeing to live with the changes despite them not being preferred. In all cases, there is agreement.

 

[Charlaquin]

Does one side capitulating to the other count as compromise?

Kind of. It’s not a mutual compromise, but the side capitulating is making a compromise. And here we see another case of language being complicated.

 

[Clint_L]

That’s still scenario 1. If the dissenter(s) are playing the game with the changed rule(s), they have agreed to the changes, albeit reluctantly. They may try to persuade the group to undo the change(s), but… well, the group would have to agree to that. It’s just not possible to change the rules of the game without the consent of the people playing that game.

Well...no, I don't agree.

Consent because you feel like you are being coerced is not consent, and we all know of situations where people felt bullied into going along, or went along because they had too much social anxiety to express their opposition, just to name two examples. I think that's why the new formulation of the rule is emphasizing caring and empathetic behaviour that takes into account everyone's fun, so we're not just using our power to push through our own preferences and calling it "consent" because we made everyone else back down or leave.

That's all the new rule is getting at: "think of everybody's fun."

 

[Mort]

And what of the players in those DM’s games? Were they not free to leave if the DM made a change they didn’t agree to? By making the choice to play in the game with the rules changed, were they not agreeing to play with those changes in place?

Not trying to split hairs, but it actually sounds like they continued playing in spite of the made changes not because of agreement with them.

There could be all sorts of reasons - They like the game on balance. They can't find an alternative. etc.

But, I don't think continuing to play means they accept any particular change.

 

[Charlaquin]

The counter-example is the group disbands, or at the least one side or the other that won't agree to compromise leaves.

Well then the rules weren’t changed without everyone’s agreement, were they?

 

[Clint_L]

Well then the rules weren’t changed without everyone’s agreement, were they?

I think you are going for "technically true" but not what most of us would consider behaviour that is really concerned with coming to consensual agreement.

Edit: like, I know that this is getting into fraught territory, but at school we teach students about consent, and a lot of what you are describing as consent is not what we are telling them.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well...no, I don't agree.

Consent because you feel like you are being coerced is not consent, and we all know of situations where people felt bullied into going along, or went along because they had too much social anxiety to express their opposition, just to name two examples. I think that's why the new formulation of the rule is emphasizing caring and empathetic behaviour that takes into account everyone's fun, so we're not just using our power to push through our own preferences and calling it "consent" because we made everyone else back down or leave.

Good point. Consent is rather a higher standard than agreement, so that was a poor choice of words on my part. We all know (or should all know) that coercion can cause someone to agree with something they don’t truly consent to.

That's all the new rule is getting at: "think of everybody's fun."

I do think that’s their intent, yes. But I also think that the intent leaves open the possibility space for a group to agree to a rules change that not every member is enthusiastically consenting to, either because some members decide not to keep playing, or because some members agree that they would rather play with a change they don’t love, then not play at all.