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

[cbwjm]

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.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Yeah, it seems to me to be one of those "problems" that sorts itself out. If anyone is particularly skeptical or hates any particular rules suggestion - then they get what they want. As long as everyone is being actually reasonable (and that's kind of the whole point) then everyone who's also being reasonable will give in.

Ain't that the truth! I've noticed that most of the potential problems brought up by posters that are supposedly the downfall of the game would 99% of the time really not happen at all, since most people are fairly reasonable about such discussions.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That would not be “a scenario where a rule gets changed despite not everyone agreeing to that change.”

The rules can be changed without the initially proposed rule being the end result.

 

[Vaalingrade]

While I still consider myself the ultimate arbiter, I am the Dungeon Master after all, I certainly don't consider myself a "god." I don't even like hearing "My way or the highway" at work let alone in a collaborative hobby where we're supposed to be having fun. When I have to make a determination on the fly I tend to rule in the player's favor, though I might revisit the topic at a later time once I've had time to think about it. While I say yes more often than no, there are still times I do say no. Though I've never had a situation where every player wanted things one way and the DM did it the other way.

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

The rules can be changed without the initially proposed rule being the end result.

Regardless, the end result is that everyone playing the game agrees on the changes to the rules, which was my point.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Who did that?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Regardless, the end result is that everyone playing the game agrees on the changes to the rules, which was my point.

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

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who did that?

Post #12 for starters:

The DM still gets to be the ultimate arbiter of their world though because frankly, no one can make them DM. It’s all voluntary.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While looking at the educator resources over on D&D beyond, I stumbled upon WoTC's current (and free) intro adventure for new (and mostly younger) players Peril in Pinebrook.

Like the starter sets this adventure has a rules primer along with it and a decent size section on how to run the game.

Unlike the starter sets OR the current rule books - it actually mentions and defines Rule 0. From the adventure:

Rule 0. Rule 0 of D&D is simple: Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone.

Has this been defined in such a manner in any other D&D supplement? If so, I certainly haven't seen it. I find this definition too open ended for my tastes! And also overly ambiguous. Does it mean rules changes must be unanimous? Majority vote? Whatever the most charismatic person at the table is able to convince the rest of the table? To me, this definition, while well intentioned, will/can cause more issues than it solves!

Thoughts?

Seems fine to me. I like a bit more specificity, but for something like this, good specificity is hard. Rule 0 isn't really the place for advice and examples, it needs to be relatively punchy. You cover edge cases (like an otherwise-good player being a stubborn donkey about something, or an otherwise-fun DM insistent that something which is poisoning the group's fun is necessary or even good). It says, pithily, consensus is important--and, by implication, that the rules are a shared starting point that shouldn't just be changed willy-nilly, but for good reason.