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

[MGibster]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and reference a point @Vaalingrade made. We're arguing about the definition of fun and quibbling over what it means to agree or tolerate a particular rule. What are we even talking about really?

 

[Hussar]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and reference a point @Vaalingrade made. We're arguing about the definition of fun and quibbling over what it means to agree or tolerate a particular rule. What are we even talking about really?

What does "the" mean in context?

 

[Clint_L]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and reference a point @Vaalingrade made. We're arguing about the definition of fun and quibbling over what it means to agree or tolerate a particular rule. What are we even talking about really?

Live and let live, I think.

 

[Charlaquin]

These are questions with legal answers that depend upon the contract law and consumer law of a particular jurisdiction.

For instance, if a particular jurisdiction has a law that precludes the exclusion of certain statute-implied terms; or has a law that prohibits the inclusion of a certain term in a contract; then no one can agree to such a thing regardless of what they sign or what button they push.

A simple example that would apply in most jurisdictions is that no one can agree to sell themself into slavery, regardless of what document they might execute.

Anyway, I don't see that these legal examples shed much light on understanding the social process of converging on rules for RPGing.

It was merely meant to illustrate that one can agree to terms one dislikes. But yeah, the “I guess I can live with olives on the pizza” analogy does illustrate that point more effectively than the terms and conditions analogy.

 

[Charlaquin]

People can comply grudgingly without actually agreeing.

Agreement need not be enthusiastic, and Begrudging compliance is still agreement, as evidenced every time I pay for my internet bill.

You not agreeing with the definition of 'agree' does not make it so my statement didn't logically follow.

No, what makes your statement not logically follow was that I asked for an example of people not compromising, and you said, “well they could compromise.”

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back and reference a point @Vaalingrade made. We're arguing about the definition of fun and quibbling over what it means to agree or tolerate a particular rule. What are we even talking about really?

Personally, I’m trying to make the case that this wording of rule zero doesn’t result in any meaningful difference in actual practice compared to previous wordings of rule zero, and a lot of people seem to have taken issue with the fact that my argument implied that people can agree to things they don’t really like…

 

[Oofta]

That sounds like reasonable advice. Are you sure it was in the DMG?
...

Chapter 1 of the 2024 DMG

House Rules​

House rules are new or modified rules you add to your game to make it your own and to enhance the style you have in mind for your game. Before you establish a house rule, ask yourself two questions:​

​

• Will the rule or change improve the game?
• Will my players like it?

If you’re confident that the answer to both questions is yes, give the new rule a try. Present house rules as experiments, and ask your players to provide feedback on them. If you introduce a house rule that isn’t fun, remove or revise the rule.​

 

[TiQuinn]

Wow. Whodathunk that saying we should cooperate in a cooperative game would spawn so much contention?

It explains a LOT.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No, what makes your statement not logically follow was that I asked for an example of people not compromising, and you said, “well they could compromise.”

Your post was about people not agreeing on the initial rules change, not about not compromising.

Even if you intended to imply they weren't compromising, that was assuming a version of 'agreement' that involve coercion and other means of allowance that doesn't necessarily involve agreement. And I'd be fine with that if you didn't decide to take an unwarranted shot to accuse me of a nonsequitur.

 

[Umbran]

Not everyone enjoys a light, casual gameplay experience though.

It isn't about the gameplay being light and casual. The line in the movie was uttered by a drill sergeant, for goodness sakes. He was neither light, nor casual. But, he knew that people had to work together.

It is about the players not being personally so tightly wound or concerned that they can admit no change or variation, and are not willing to make room for anyone else.