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

[Thomas Shey]

It does say they all have to have fun though. Might be hard to have fun if playing under rules you don't like.

Depends. How big an impact does a given rule have? If it only impacts you occasionally, you can still be having net fun in the game, just not when that particular rule is engaged. But expecting everyone to have fun at all points in a game requires a really, really coherent group in their expectations in my experience, well beyond most groups.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes but that last part is really the most important part.

I don’t like Blades in the Dark as a system. I tried it with our group, I voiced my opinion, and I finished the game despite not really liking it. Did I let it distract from the game? No. Did I let anyone else who did like it feel bad? No. I accepted it and when it was time to vote on the next game we wanted to play, I voted against another BitD game.

Sure, that's a mature way to handle it. But I think you were still in a zero-sum situation there, and could have characterized what you did there as "capitulating".

 

[TiQuinn]

Sure, that's a mature way to handle it. But I think you were still in a zero-sum situation there, and could have characterized what you did there as "capitulating".

Sure if I wanted to treat it like a forum argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

It does say they all have to have fun though. Might be hard to have fun if playing under rules you don't like.

In which case I would hope the person would opt not to continue playing. Again I think “fun” is a bit of an ambiguous word here, but if a game isn’t fun or being played for some prize or reward, I would recommend against playing it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Totally understandable; like I said, I’ve made the same mistake plenty of times myself, which is why I extend the benefit of the doubt whenever reasonably possible.

And believe me, while not being in a situation where it matters personally, I've seen enough people have others apply the wrong pronouns deliberately that I know which side my sympathies are on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure if I wanted to treat it like a forum argument.

Just saying someone can view it that way without being a troublemaker. If it bothers them it bothers them; what you should care about is whether they impose that bother on others.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The problem is, semantics almost always matters as soon as it impacts how people perceive the matter at hand. That's why I usually think "semantic argument" is overly dismissive; semantics is, at the end of the day, while a bit meta, still a case of establishing what's actually being discussed.

Sure, that’s why I addressed what I consider the semantic argument by pointing out that there is still more than one participant, and that the campaign belongs to the group.

Only then did I point out that I didn’t think @Lanefan ’s point was all that relevant to the idea of DM ownership of a campaign in the way it’s being discussed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, I, heh, agree when it comes to legal documents since it’s a term-of-art there. But there's a big difference between terms-of-art and general usage, same here as in many places.

I think this is an analogous case though. A social contract isn’t actually a legal agreement, but we call it a contract to emphasize that it is similar to a legal agreement in a meaningful sense. That sense being, from my perspective, that by choosing to play, you are choosing to abide by the game’s rules. That’s why, to me, anyone who plays in a game where the rules have been changed is tacitly agreeing to those changes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In which case I would hope the person would opt not to continue playing. Again I think “fun” is a bit of an ambiguous word here, but if a game isn’t fun or being played for some prize or reward, I would recommend against playing it.

Kind of gets back to the old "no gaming is better than bad gaming", where the problem is different people's definition of "bad" here can be considerably varied. I've definitely had cases of campaigns I participated in where its possible I could have found another game I'd have gotten more out of--or could have just not found a game, and still got something out of the imperfect one I was in.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, that’s why I addressed what I consider the semantic argument by pointing out that there is still more than one participant, and that the campaign belongs to the group.

Only then did I point out that I didn’t think @Lanefan ’s point was all that relevant to the idea of DM ownership of a campaign in the way it’s being discussed.

I suspect part of that turns on the fact there's some profound disagreements in the hobby about what degree the efforts of a GM are or aren't symmetrical with a players', and what that means in terms of rights and duties.