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

[Kurotowa]

I don't like the wording on this, purely because it implies you can only change the rules if everyone is having more fun. Sometimes a necessary rules change results in some of the group having less fun so that others in the group can have some fun at all.

This formulation of Rule Zero is made with the assumption that everyone at the table is at least a moderately mature and reasonable person who will respect the time and enjoyment of the other people at the table. Which is both the attitude that should be encouraged, and the only real tact you can take if you don't want to go the path of enforcing rulings on unhappy and uncooperative players. Which honestly only encourages the sort of adversarial and unhealthy play dynamics that people post horror stories about.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't like the wording on this, purely because it implies you can only change the rules if everyone is having more fun. Sometimes a necessary rules change results in some of the group having less fun so that others in the group can have some fun at all.

Is it really the case that the rules, as they stand, are somehow genuinely preventing people from having any fun at all? That's a rather scary thing to contemplate.

 

[MGibster]

I mean look how quickly people were to point out the 'loophole' to this simple advocacy for collaborative play that the DM can simply hold the game hostage until they get their own way. That's not coming from nothing.

It's not. But I've been in a few situations where it was the player who held the game hostage and ruined it for everyone else. The truth is any rule can be exploited by someone playing the game in bad faith. If you run into that person my suggestion is to simply stop gaming with them.

When I do say no to a player for some reason, I like to give them an explanation. Even as a kid, "Because I said so," wasn't an acceptable answer.

 

[MGibster]

Is it really the case that the rules, as they stand, are somehow genuinely preventing people from having any fun at all? That's a rather scary thing to contemplate.

If this was really the case, we're not changing a few rules we're changing games. Cyberpunk Red, I'm looking at you!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's not. But I've been in a few situations where it was the player who held the game hostage and ruined it for everyone else. The truth is any rule can be exploited by someone playing the game in bad faith. If you run into that person my suggestion is to simply stop gaming with them.

When I do say no to a player for some reason, I like to give them an explanation. Even as a kid, "Because I said so," wasn't an acceptable answer.

Frankly, it's the kids who have this so much clearer than adults. Adults can hide behind layers of precedent and pretense and social obligation. Children, particularly young ones, don't have the tools to dissemble like that yet, nor as much fear of "stepping on a landmine" or the like. They'll demand some kind of real answer, not just deflecting or blanket assertion of authority.

If this was really the case, we're not changing a few rules we're changing games. Cyberpunk Red, I'm looking at you!

I'd argue that even that situation is not "the game is literally preventing a person from even potentially having fun", but rather than the effort in to fun out ratio simply makes D&D no longer worthwhile.

Something that could actually reach into your brain and deactivate your ability to feel enjoyment in an activity, regardless of your own efforts, would be VERY scary.

 

[Charlaquin]

My point was that compromise wasn't presented as an option in the post I replied to.

Because I was specifically asking about a scenario that didn’t involve compromise.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't like the wording on this, purely because it implies you can only change the rules if everyone is having more fun. Sometimes a necessary rules change results in some of the group having less fun so that others in the group can have some fun at all.

Fun is kind of a slippery word. Because I think “fun” is often used as shorthand for describing enjoyment of a leisure activity. But also some things that aren’t typically described as “fun” can be enjoyable as part of leisure activities. Like, catharsis, for example, can be greatly enjoyable despite not being what I think most would typically call “fun.” But I don’t think that the intent of this passage was to say that a rules change aimed at producing cathartic gameplay experience isn’t sanctioned under rule zero. Language is complicated like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

2e had the following which summarised a couple of paragraphs:

In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game.

I kind of feel like this is in a similar spirit to what's been mentioned in the starter adventure since if breaking the rules doesn't make your game more fun then it isn't an improvement.

Something so many seem so eager to neglect or forget.

Well, that and the fact that we pay these writers for their rules-text, so it's more than a little silly to say that one is 100% happy about paying someone else for the privilege of...overruling the very rules-text one purchased.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fun is kind of a slippery word. Because I think “fun” is often used as shorthand for describing enjoyment of a leisure activity. But also some things that aren’t typically described as “fun” can be enjoyable as part of leisure activities. Like, catharsis, for example, can be greatly enjoyable despite not being what I think most would typically call “fun.” But I don’t think that the intent of this passage was to say that a rules change aimed at producing cathartic gameplay experience isn’t sanctioned under rule zero. Language is complicated like that.

It's one of the several reasons why I bristle at the assertion that games should just be "designed for fun" and nothing else matters. It would be like saying food should be designed for edibility or movies for watchability. Uselessly nonspecific, to the point of containing things that look on their surface like outright contradictions.

The very things that make one food edible may make another inedible, based on the other elements that factor in. The very things that make one game system fun could be absolutely fun-wrecking in another. "Design what's fun!" You might as well tell someone trying to escape a labyrinth to "walk toward the exit, 4head!"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because I was specifically asking about a scenario that didn’t involve compromise.

That's a rather odd thing to want to assert. 'What happens when people don't compromise?' They... well they don't compromise.