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

[Vaalingrade]

So an example of how things work in my group.

We've been playing a PF game with the Kingdom rules since the start of the pandemic. At this point, we've gone beyond the scope of what those rules were designed for and even with three of the players maintaining a spreadsheet to make it work more smoothly, it was starting to lag the game out and the DM's custom research rules didn't take into consideration how much money and manpower the system would allow us to blow through plot-sensitive research.

So the DM posted in our discord outlining the issues he saw going forward and what he was trying to do, asking us if maybe we should abandon the existing Kingmaker rules and asking for idea on how to streamline it.

Over the weekend, we all discussed options and put together a new set of rules to use for out kingdom to replace the spreadsheet. Some of the players were sad to see the work they did on the spreadsheet go, but had sympathy for how the rules were affecting what the DM was trying to do and how much time it was taking from the rest of us.

So we we built the rules and decided we would keep an eye out for any unforeseen issues and bring them up as they happen. We take maybe six minutes a session to identify problems and propose solutions. It's not a problem because we're all willing to listen to each others and come to compromises.

And that's a major overhaul to a complex set of rules that are core to the campaign. It shouldn't be any more traumatic to decide whether beats meets or what you roll for grapple.

 

[Oofta]

You keep returning to "having a big argument". The only time that should occur is if the majority of the group disagrees, and if that's the case, then I think they've said they think it needs a big argument, and frankly, the fact the GM doesn't think so shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Again, you've never had some of the players I've had. All it takes is one rules lawyer who wants to interpret a rule as favorable for them that is not the generally accepted interpretation to have an argument. Having that rules lawyer bully other players into agreeing with them (and yes, I've seen people try), is not a good system.

But this is going nowhere. I agree with what the authors of D&D have stated for half a century. The DM making the final call works best for the game although obviously everyone at the table should respect each other and endeavor the make the game fun for everyone.

I don't want rule by committee. You do. Is there anything else to say?

 

[Emerikol]

<snip>
"Work for them" and "needs every decision to go there way" aren't synonyms. If it is for someone, I think there's a problem right there.

The DM can decide and change their mind. The DM though never has to change his or her mind. There is a difference in those two things.

The DM is the only remotely neutral party when it comes to an adjudication of the rules. The players want it to go there way even if that weakens the game. I think a lot of this is session 0 stuff and players opt in or opt out. But a game time decisions about a rule adjudication has to be in the DM's realm or the job of DM is meaningless.

What you'll get and what I see DMs go through even now with some groups is a demoralized and demotivated DM and the campaign dies.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm suggesting rules decisions should be group decisions, not unitary GM decisions, and that fact itself shouldn't be just decided by the GM. It should be taken as a given. (And before someone wants to wave around "but what about on the fly decisions, we can't be taking time to hash them out!", it takes all of five seconds to have everyone sign off on a decision or not, and if you can't get at least half of them to do so, they obviously don't think time is as important as you do).

I think an important piece here is that the limits of a GM's ability to arbitrate are fairly granular, and not simply a "Yes/No" proposition.

The GM's ability to arbitrate new consequences, for example, is where you see a lot of variation in system. A trad RPG GM can just spring an ambush, where a Dungeon World G might require a hard move triggered by player failure.

The GM's ability to arbitrate fictional positioning within a scene ("Wait, is my character standing close enough to the pit to fall in? Do I have time to cast a spell while falling into this pit?") is something where almost all styles give the GM the final call, with some exceptions in a few systems.

Likewise, the GM's ability to arbitrate ambiguous processes ("Does my climb skill work on glass?") is generally viewed as under the GM's purview.

The GM's ability to arbitrate top-level house rules, including changes and removal of races, classes, and defined rules processes, is I would argue much more constrained. And it really comes down to situational leverage. The GM who says "No gnomes, I don't like gnomes" is in a weaker position to have final say than the DM who says "We all agreed to play in my personal setting of Kezelwop, which I've been detailing for 25 years, and Kezelwop doesn't have gnomes."

The GM will generally have the upper hand here by dint of taking on the more difficult role, but I don't think that's because of their position as the game arbiter; it's because of the inherent deference to the preferences of the person willing to take on a more challenging job for the good of the group.

 

[Emerikol]

I think an important piece here is that the limits of a GM's ability to arbitrate are fairly granular, and not simply a "Yes/No" proposition.

The GM's ability to arbitrate new consequences, for example, is where you see a lot of variation in system. A trad RPG GM can just spring an ambush, where a Dungeon World G might require a hard move triggered by player failure.

The GM's ability to arbitrate fictional positioning within a scene ("Wait, is my character standing close enough to the pit to fall in? Do I have time to cast a spell while falling into this pit?") is something where almost all styles give the GM the final call, with some exceptions in a few systems.

Likewise, the GM's ability to arbitrate ambiguous processes ("Does my climb skill work on glass?") is generally viewed as under the GM's purview.

Agree with above.

The GM's ability to arbitrate top-level house rules, including changes and removal of races, classes, and defined rules processes, is I would argue much more constrained. And it really comes down to situational leverage. The GM who says "No gnomes, I don't like gnomes" is in a weaker position to have final say than the DM who says "We all agreed to play in my personal setting of Kezelwop, which I've been detailing for 25 years, and Kezelwop doesn't have gnomes."

The GM will generally have the upper hand here by dint of taking on the more difficult role, but I don't think that's because of their position as the game arbiter; it's because of the inherent deference to the preferences of the person willing to take on a more challenging job for the good of the group.

I operate in the DM makes an offer of a style of game and players sign up or don't. I realize that is not the way it is for a lot of people. I do believe the setting is absolutely a DM prerogative though. That would include things like races, classes, spells, magic items, etc.. In fact I tell my players that anything they know about magic items and monsters is hearsay at best and not to rely overmuch on it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again, you've never had some of the players I've had. All it takes is one rules lawyer who wants to interpret a rule as favorable for them that is not the generally accepted interpretation to have an argument. Having that rules lawyer bully other players into agreeing with them (and yes, I've seen people try), is not a good system.

Like I said, if you have a group where one player can bully everyone else successfully and you can't do anything about it, you've got a much bigger problem than anything to do with rules.

But this is going nowhere. I agree with what the authors of D&D have stated for half a century. The DM making the final call works best for the game although obviously everyone at the table should respect each other and endeavor the make the game fun for everyone.

I don't want rule by committee. You do. Is there anything else to say?

Other than for me to say that I think that's a problem? Which I've said all along? But apparently that's offensive, so you kept going back to this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The DM can decide and change their mind. The DM though never has to change his or her mind. There is a difference in those two things.

And I don't think there should be. Is that clear enough?

The DM is the only remotely neutral party when it comes to an adjudication of the rules. The players want it to go there way even if that weakens the game. I think a lot of this is session 0 stuff and players opt in or opt out. But a game time decisions about a rule adjudication has to be in the DM's realm or the job of DM is meaningless.

What you'll get and what I see DMs go through even now with some groups is a demoralized and demotivated DM and the campaign dies.

Except it isn't necessarily "what you get" as others have told you, so you can either accept that's an overgeneralization or decide we're all lying. Your choice.

 

[Mort]

Agree with above.


I operate in the DM makes an offer of a style of game and players sign up or don't. I realize that is not the way it is for a lot of people. I do believe the setting is absolutely a DM prerogative though. That would include things like races, classes, spells, magic items, etc.. In fact I tell my players that anything they know about magic items and monsters is hearsay at best and not to rely overmuch on it.

Forgetting everything else, this is a great way to moot any metagaming concerns. I'll tell my players they are free to rely on their (player) knowledge of the DMG, MM or even any given adventure. But I change stuff all the time and if that player knowledge turns out to be 100% wrong - that's on them.

 

[TwoSix]

I operate in the DM makes an offer of a style of game and players sign up or don't. I realize that is not the way it is for a lot of people. I do believe the setting is absolutely a DM prerogative though. That would include things like races, classes, spells, magic items, etc.. In fact I tell my players that anything they know about magic items and monsters is hearsay at best and not to rely overmuch on it.

Just for comparison, my Thursday group is planning on discussing our next long-term (year or two) campaign tomorrow. We have 4 DMs that are pitching about a dozen possible options.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think an important piece here is that the limits of a GM's ability to arbitrate are fairly granular, and not simply a "Yes/No" proposition.

The GM's ability to arbitrate new consequences, for example, is where you see a lot of variation in system. A trad RPG GM can just spring an ambush, where a Dungeon World G might require a hard move triggered by player failure.

The GM's ability to arbitrate fictional positioning within a scene ("Wait, is my character standing close enough to the pit to fall in? Do I have time to cast a spell while falling into this pit?") is something where almost all styles give the GM the final call, with some exceptions in a few systems.

Likewise, the GM's ability to arbitrate ambiguous processes ("Does my climb skill work on glass?") is generally viewed as under the GM's purview.

The GM's ability to arbitrate top-level house rules, including changes and removal of races, classes, and defined rules processes, is I would argue much more constrained. And it really comes down to situational leverage. The GM who says "No gnomes, I don't like gnomes" is in a weaker position to have final say than the DM who says "We all agreed to play in my personal setting of Kezelwop, which I've been detailing for 25 years, and Kezelwop doesn't have gnomes."

The GM will generally have the upper hand here by dint of taking on the more difficult role, but I don't think that's because of their position as the game arbiter; it's because of the inherent deference to the preferences of the person willing to take on a more challenging job for the good of the group.

The kicker on this is nothing about my suggestion prevents this. After all, the players can just go along with whatever decision the GM has come up with--and probably in many if not most cases will.

What I'm suggesting is that as a group they should have the option not to beyond simply walking away. And the only counters I've seen turn on players as bad actors that yet the GM has not simply elected not to play with nor can otherwise reason with.