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

[clearstream]

I'm just going by what the DMG says. As far as who brings up the idea? Why would I as a DM care? If we like the house rule we'll adopt it.

Also we need to remember that the advice this thread seems to be based on is for absolute beginners. As far as the actual mod, I can't find it on DDB. Maybe @Mort could clarify, or is this only for educators?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/tag/new-players-guide

 

[Lanefan]

You are literally describing someone having fun.

Indeed.

And yet whenever one brings up the idea of adding level drain, forced aging, and other similar major mechanical setbacks back into the game as possible "loss conditions" alongside death the responding chorus of "Noes, noes, that's not fun, not ever!" is loud, long, and persistent.

 

[Oofta]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/tag/new-players-guide

That link I can actually access from my DDB account.

But in any case, the rules listed there are specifically a simplified version of the rules. It doesn't go into any significant depth of what it is to be a DM and, as such, is perfectly fine. Obviously I'm not going to introduce a house rule someone at the table hates, and we can debate what exactly the word "fun" means for playing a TTRPG. It's certainly not "hand out phat lootz like candy while you mow down enemies without breaking a sweat" for most people. At least not for long.

 

[Oofta]

Indeed.

And yet whenever one brings up the idea of adding level drain, forced aging, and other similar major mechanical setbacks back into the game as possible "loss conditions" alongside death the responding chorus of "Noes, noes, that's not fun, not ever!" is loud, long, and persistent.

What is good for me may not be good for thee. It should be up to individual groups to decide what they want.

 

[Charlaquin]

At that point we're playing with a whole different definition of 'agree'.

Are we? Again, how does one play in a game with rules they don’t agree to? Is one being forced to play somehow?

And nonsequitur. Which is at least a new one for Enworld, so respect there.

A conclusion or statement that doesn’t logically follow from the previous argument or statement is exactly what the response was.

 

[Mort]

Ah, I see. I looked under Adventures in Sources. Not even sure how to navigate to Educator resources without the link you provide. In any case, thanks.

EDIT: I can't even access the page if I'm logged into my account. I literally get kicked out of my account if I use the link. Must have something to do with the type of account you have.

Woops,

That's because I thought it was under D&D beyond for whatever reason, but it's not. It's on the Wizards D&D page. Which would explain why the adventure is a downloadable PDF instead of on D&D beyond itself! Thought that was extremely odd, but didn't even question it much. I think it was because I was accessing the site on my phone and didn't look too closely.

 

[Greg K]

I don't bother banning them (although my house rule is that you can't attack anything outside the hut or rope trick). I just decide what the logical conclusion to them being used is.

For myself, I don't like the concept of the spells themselves and their impact on both the exploration pillar and resting.

 

[clearstream]

Sure, that’s pretty common. My post was about my use as a GM. Even then, I prefer to think of it as “our campaign” because I don’t feel like it’s a solo thing or that I have some kind of ownership over it.

Which kind of jibes with this new take on Rule Zero, and the general trend I’ve noticed over the past several years.

Now, I’d certainly not fault anyone for referring to a campaign that way in a casual way… but the post from @Emerikol to which I was responding was making a pretty clear point that he expects any campaign he runs to be “his” and that anyone who thought otherwise wasn’t a “worthwhile DM”.

So my comment was more about pointing out how archaic, narrow, and, in my opinion, flat out wrong that view is.

I'm prepared to entertain the notion of a respectable, contemporary mode in which one participant owns "the campaign" which is a kind of resource or institution that they count as their property. They would be chief author of and retain the artifacts and identities it is formed of. What they say about the campaign is true for anyone who concedes that they are the right person to say it, which is to say everyone who is qualified (through, inter alia, that acceptance) to participate in it.

I've observed that said ownership and authorship can get tangled up with other assumptions that to me seem erroneous.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think "agree" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. I've had rules issues I let go that I didn't really "agree" about so much as deciding the necessary effort required to address the issue wasn't worth it, but I wouldn't describe my response as "agreeing".

I would absolutely describe that as agreeing, but I guess it depends on what we’re assuming the agreement is about. To me, it sounds like you are agreeing to let the ruling stand, despite holding onto misgivings about the ruling. I could certainly see an argument that you conceded the argument despite not agreeing that it was the best ruling. Is “agreeing to disagree” ultimately more of an agreement or a disagreement? Can it not be both?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Are we? Again, how does one play in a game with rules they don’t agree to? Is one being forced to play somehow?

A conclusion or statement that doesn’t logically follow from the previous argument or statement is exactly what the response was.

Let me ask you a question, and perhaps the nature of the question will show why there's some issues with this discussion.

Do "tolerate" and "agree" operate as synonymous terms to you? I'd suggest that there's some fairly significant connotational differences to most people, and you seem (not the word) to be considering the second to engulf the meaning of the first.