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

[Bagpuss]

Well what’s the alternative? What would a scenario where a rule gets changed despite not everyone agreeing to that change actually look like?

You mean like in every edition of D&D and most RPGs, where the DM decided what the rules are?

 

[Bagpuss]

The group discusses things and works together to come to a compromise?

And if they can't come to a compromise? Or at the least not in a timely manner.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean like in every edition of D&D and most RPGs, where the DM decided what the rules are?

That's a good point. Every time a ruling comes down from on high, and certainly every time there's an edition change, acknowledged by the IP owner or not, there are tons of people who now have to deal with changed rules they didn't agree to.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't. Oh dear we aren't unanimous however will we decide if this is a good thing or not.

Oh I know we could keep arguing for eternity since there is no final arbiter of the rules anymore.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.”​

― John Lydgate

Clearly the some of the people you need to please all of the time should be the DMs, as without them the games cannot run. Which is why the DM has traditionally been the final arbiter of the rules.

And this just seems like the kind of forum based argument that I hardly ever see play out at the table anymore. Yes, the DM’s POV has importance because they’re the ones running the game, but nothing about that changes anything about the rule. Reasonable people understand that the DM is the one who has to be comfortable running the game, and sometimes they choose to run a rule differently than what I’d choose, AND THAT’S OKAY.

 

[Demetrios1453]

And if they can't come to a compromise? Or at the least not in a timely manner.

Then the group disbands.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then the group disbands.

Does one side capitulating to the other count as compromise?

 

[TwoSix]

Does one side capitulating to the other count as compromise?

I think one side can "win" without it strictly being a capitulation.

It could be a transactional "win now" for an assumed favor later. "We'll do it your way, but next time I get to pick."

Or it could be a probationary win. "OK, let's try it your way, and we can revisit in a few sessions and see if we like it."

 

[clearstream]

Rule Zero makes clear that the rules themselves don’t have some special dogmatic legitimacy purely because they’re written in the books. Following a rule for its own sake when no one at the table wants it makes no sense.

I don't think it applies in this case, but it could make sense to insist on adhering to the rules as written in pursuit of a specific experience a designer aims to deliver. It might even be that achieving an experience that "no one at the table wants" is the goal. Another context in which adhering to the rules would make sense is one that is competitive, such as a formal tournament.

These sorts of examples make me feel that there are exceptions to a general assumption of permissiveness that could make sense.

 

[Xamnam]

I don't think it applies in this case, but it could make sense to insist on adhering to the rules as written in pursuit of a specific experience a designer aims to deliver.

Exactly why I do my best to not rely on Rule 0 logic in a game where it is not explicitly included in the rule set.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I see this new rule zero definition as part of the general trend of dnd2024 taking power away from GMs and putting more power in "The Rulebook".

Rather than indicating that the rules are the GM's to change as they see it, the rules are a far more the expected baseline and changing them is meant to be difficult.

Other examples of this:

• Feats and Multiclassing are no longer Optional Rules, but are mandatory baselines for every game.
• Most optional rules modules have been removed from the DMG. The "GM Workshop" Chapter has been greatly reduced in size and scope.
• Many actions which were on the GM to arbitrate have been giving hard-coded actions (study, search, etc).
• The rules for Improvising Contests has been removed.
• abilities triggered by the GM have been removed (Tides of Chaos, for example).