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

[Charlaquin]

I suspect they're excluding that with the phrase "viable scenario" in their first sentence given their other posts on this.

My intent is not so much to exclude players leaving the group from being considered a viable scenario, so much as to exclude players who opt not to continue play from being counted among “the players” who must agree to a rules change for it to be sanctioned under this phasing of rule zero. I suppose if not a single player agrees to keep playing if the rule is changed, that could be interpreted as a third scenario beyond those I described. But I would then argue the rule has not really been changed, since the game ended before the change could ever actually be implemented in play.

Also, for future reference it would be “her other posts,” not “their other posts.”

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

I don't really think so, but see my post above about the connotational differences between "tolerating" something and "agreeing" with it. I suspect to my view what you're talking about is more what I would refer to as "accepting" something contextually than "agreeing" with it.

I mean, its hard for me to see something I think is a bad idea and something I think I'm going to dislike as "agreeing" with it, even if I accept it as a price of continuing.

 

[Lanefan]

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 haven't agreed to the changes. In effect, they're continuing to play "under protest" with the intent of keeping the issue an open question rather than accepting the resolution given. Why? Because if they leave the game the question becomes closed* - it's highly unlikely they can have any effect on it from the outside - thus the only way of keeping the question open is to stay put and make sure it stays open.

I've been on both sides of this situation in the past.

* - unless one of those leaving starts up his own game, keeping the rules as they were. That's in fact a lot of how-why I became a DM; I didn't leave the first game (in part because if I had I wouldn't have been able to see the long-term effects of a bunch of rule changes I didn't like) but did start my own in part to try to show people that yes, things worked fine as they were before those changes were made. Long-term result: neither the changed nor the unchanged system worked that well, and we both made further changes later which brought the games closer together in system.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I didn't even know that site was even still active. Then @clearstream provided a link to the new players guide above and I can't figure out how access that page except through the link provided.

In any case, I don't think the definition of rule 0 really applies to anything other than this intro module. It's not really designed to replace the core rulebooks after all, it's just a simplified version of the game as an introduction into what D&D is like.

On a side note I do kind of like the idea of pregens with descriptions with simple choices for role playing your character like "Excited or Calm", "Timid or Brave" for the halfling, especially for younger kids. Give them simple choices and let them run with it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also, for future reference it would be “her other posts,” not “their other posts.”

I accept your preference here, but I'll be really honest and tell you there's a good chance I'll have forgotten by the next time I'm in an adjacent discussion )my memory was kind of terrible 50 years ago and has not improved in the intervening half century); I vaguely remembered you might identify as "her" and figured "their" was a better error than either of the others I could choose.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there's a big excluded middle to at least some extent here; if you have a limited number of gaming options you may decide to continue with rules you actively dislike because you'd rather deal with them than not play at all,

My intent is not to exclude that possibility, but rather to suggest that this might be a reason a player decides to agree to a rules change despite not liking it. That said…

but I'm not sure "agree" doesn't have an overly strong sense of commitment to what's going on to describe the situation.

I think that’s a reasonable position, and not really one I think I can change your mind about, if you haven’t found my arguments this far persuasive. It seems like we at least understand each other on the matter, which is sufficient for me.

 

[TiQuinn]

Hmmm. I've occasionally let rules disagreements I had that applied to only a subset of rules that weren't going to have far reaching consequences but mattered a lot to someone else as "a hill I'm not interested in dying on" and let them go. I can see that being viewed as "capitulation".

It's more the connotation to me, that's all. As @AbdulAlhazred noted, it's a very zero-sum game viewpoint when it shouldn't be.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My intent is not so much to exclude players leaving the group from being considered a viable scenario, so much as to exclude players who opt not to continue play from being counted among “the players” who must agree to a rules change for it to be sanctioned under this phasing of rule zero. I suppose if not a single player agrees to keep playing if the rule is changed, that could be interpreted as a third scenario beyond those I described. But I would then argue the rule has not really been changed, since the game ended before the change could ever actually be implemented in play.

That was more or less what I'd assumed, that someone choosing to refuse the change was no longer involved and thus "not viable".

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that’s a reasonable position, and not really one I think I can change your mind about, if you haven’t found my arguments this far persuasive. It seems like we at least understand each other on the matter, which is sufficient for me.

That's fine. I just wanted to note there might well be a strong semantic element to this discussion that can't entirely be ignored, since its liable to have some serious influence in how people perceive the matter at hand.

 

[Mort]

In any case, I don't think the definition of rule 0 really applies to anything other than this intro module. It's not really designed to replace the core rulebooks after all, it's just a simplified version of the game as an introduction into what D&D is like.

Hence "a glimpse..." It's not really dispositive, just interesting.