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

[Belen]

During a game I'll typically listen to a disagreement but move on quickly. On the other hand if it's something new, something I haven't recently reviewed and this comes at a critical juncture like a PC dying or the BBEG getting away? Then maybe we'll talk about it some more, but I don't remember the last time that we felt like it was necessary.

That doesn't mean I ignore player input, just that as a DM I have a responsibility to the entire group to keep things moving along.

Agreed. I am lucky to get 4-8 hours of session time per month so I cannot waste a lot of time on debates and discussions during game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

During a game I'll typically listen to a disagreement but move on quickly. On the other hand if it's something new, something I haven't recently reviewed and this comes at a critical juncture like a PC dying or the BBEG getting away? Then maybe we'll talk about it some more, but I don't remember the last time that we felt like it was necessary.

That doesn't mean I ignore player input, just that as a DM I have a responsibility to the entire group to keep things moving along.

There's obviously some practical limitations to how much time can be taken doing this sort of thing in-game, but I have two views that apply here:
1. I just can't get on board people who consider game flow and pacing a priority over everything else (which I'm not saying you're doing, but may well be by my standards; its a moving target impossible to tell from just what you've posted).
2. Note the poster I quoted's statement on this was, as presented, absolute, and I flat out think that's kind of a ridiculous position if so.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fair.

I did not make up the terms though and most people just use DM or GM.

The intent is still there and still gross to me.

Like it gets a pass for general use, but when someone straight up tries to explain to me that Dungeon Master means they're the master here... yeah bye. Because I'm not the other thing no matter how much the game loves that as a point of lore for no good reason.

 

[Oofta]

Bad GMs didn't drop from heaven that way. Sometimes its about personal traits. Sometimes its about having been taught bad habits. I don't see anything useful to be had by conflating the two.

I'm failing to see the relevance here. Some people shouldn't be DMs. Heck, some people shouldn't play D&D. But I fail to see how rule 0 or the DM being referee, keeping in mind all the rest of the guidance, has significant impact on being a bad DM.

 

[Belen]

There's obviously some practical limitations to how much time can be taken doing this sort of thing in-game, but I have two views that apply here:
1. I just can't get on board people who consider game flow and pacing a priority over everything else (which I'm not saying you're doing, but may well be by my standards; its a moving target impossible to tell from just what you've posted).
2. Note the poster I quoted's statement on this was, as presented, absolute, and I flat out think that's kind of a ridiculous position if so.

Rules discussions in 3e and PF1e could take an hour or more. It killed momentum so I adopted quick rulings to compensate. In the 3e days, I had weekly 4-8 hour sessions. Now I am lucky to have 4 hours twice a month so time is more precious.

Debate and discussion can be handled out of game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm failing to see the relevance here. Some people shouldn't be DMs. Heck, some people shouldn't play D&D. But I fail to see how rule 0 or the DM being referee, keeping in mind all the rest of the guidance, has significant impact on being a bad DM.

The relevance is that some people have been taught that the proper way to GM are things I think are flat out bad ideas. If they'd been taught different ones, they wouldn't have the same problems. And one of the things I think applies here is an overly strong top-down approach to things.

I see that as a world apart from an intrinsic problem with the person.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think they have to be, but when people insist on vesting ultimate decision making in them and won't even acknowledge a consensual approach can be viable, I think its asking for a dictatorial approach to be a common failure-state. Because it is virtually everywhere else in life where that's true, so I'm not sure why people should be surprised it is here.

I think the DM making the final call works best in every game I've ever played. I think having an appointed leader or an agreed upon method of solving disputes when it comes to complex topics and group activities work best.

Sometimes you simply cannot come to 100% consensus. Do I need to drag out the yes/no rogue/thief issue that people refuse to answer yet again?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rules discussions in 3e and PF1e could take an hour or more. It killed momentum so I adopted quick rulings to compensate. In the 3e days, I had weekly 4-8 hour sessions. Now I am lucky to have 4 hours twice a month so time is more precious.

Debate and discussion can be handled out of game.

And sometimes I think functionally, no they can't and do the job they need to.

So there we are.

 

[Oofta]

IMO, any DMing approach that involves "teaching the players a lesson.." needs to be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

Gygax would have disagreed, but I haven't seen anyone espouse that opinion nor have I seen it in a book for a long time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the DM making the final call works best in every game I've ever played. I think having an appointed leader or an agreed upon method of solving disputes when it comes to complex topics and group activities work best.

Sometimes you simply cannot come to 100% consensus. Do I need to drag out the yes/no rogue/thief issue that people refuse to answer yet again?

I've not talked about 100% agreement. That's not what consensus means, after all. But there's a big difference between that and "what the GM says, goes."