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

[TiQuinn]

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."

The phrasing “capitulation” is such a loaded term. It seems very much borne out of the way we argue about the rules on forums. Forum arguments are about the act of arguing. Table arguments are fewer and farther between because the people there didn’t come to the table to argue, they came to play. I’m pretty sure no one at a game table looks at a rules discussion not going the way they wanted as capitulation. Someone outside looking at the discussion through a virtual pane of glass sees capitulation.

 

[roguish]

Does anyone know if this is anywhere in the new the 2024 PHB or DMG, or what the new DMG actually says on the matter?

The DMG has a section on house rules, and says the DM can change or make up rules, as long as they think that it will improve the game, and the players will like it. It also suggests DMs take player feedback on house rules, and remove or revise them as necessary.

 

[Emerikol]

I didn't read the whole thread as it's already nine pages. I will just say that rule 0 for me will always mean the DM is final arbiter of what goes on inside any campaign he or she is running. No player though is required to play in that campaign.

I am fine as a player seeking out a DM that fits my style. I hope players will do the same and that means some will embrace my campaign style and others will not and that is okay. I'm just not going to pour out the amount of effort I make and effort I consider necessary and then have the game made not fun by a committee vote. I believe I'm a benevolent dictator because I really love what I do and I like making the kind of game that thrills SOME players. I want to do that and I want to avoid those I don't thrill and hopefully with minimum fuss.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

Wait for the mom of whoever's house they're playing in to tell them to go home.

 

[Azzy]

Clearly the some of the people you need to please all of the time should be the DMs

The text clearly includes the DM when it says fun for everyone.

The sky isn't falling.

 

[Clint_L]

When playing a cooperative game, you have to have a generally copacetic group. That has always been true, and will always be true. If you love to argue and nitpick over rules while gaming, then that's cool as long as everyone is having fun...which is consistent with this new variation of Rule Zero.

The reality is that, if things aren't working out, it isn't always as easy as "find a new group," though. Typically, gaming groups are formed from real life relationships and stuff happens in life. Nobody meshes perfectly all the time. So we can't just shop for the perfect group and are going to have to all accept some compromises. I think that's what this new framing of the rule is getting at: for the game to succeed, we all have to practice empathy and ask ourselves "is this fun for that other person, or are they just going along with it so I will shut the hell up and we can get on with the game?"

A lot of the gameplay suggestions in the rules update are basically just suggesting that we will all have a better time if we are more considerate towards each other, and if we are more up front in our communication. I think that, as DMs, we do sometimes have a tendency towards a "my way or the highway approach," and I know that I can sometimes do better at looking at things from a player perspective. I think that's all the new wording of Rule 0 is suggesting: honestly ask yourself "is this about what's fun for me, or what's fun for everyone?"

And that said, it's also imposing a responsibility to communicate what isn't fun for you. If you have some lines that you won't cross, be clear about them. I don't run "evil" campaigns; I tell my players that right at session zero. No stealing from party members in my beginner campaigns. Stuff like that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Seems like a non-issue to me, and a much more egalitarian take on Rule Zero.

Games can indeed function this way. It’s nowhere near as difficult as some are describing.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

My point was that there’s no viable scenario in which the rules can be changed without everyone playing the game agreeing to that change. If they compromise, it’s a given that they agree on the compromise, so that scenario is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. However, in any scenario where they don’t compromise, it’s still the case that everyone playing the game agrees to the changes. I asked if anyone could come up with a counter-example, and you said “well they could compromise.” But that’s not a counter-example at all, it’s just a nonsequitur.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The phrasing “capitulation” is such a loaded term. It seems very much borne out of the way we argue about the rules on forums. Forum arguments are about the act of arguing. Table arguments are fewer and farther between because the people there didn’t come to the table to argue, they came to play. I’m pretty sure no one at a game table looks at a rules discussion not going the way they wanted as capitulation. Someone outside looking at the discussion through a virtual pane of glass sees capitulation.

Agreed, it smacks of zero-sum thinking. I think @Dire Bare is thinking more like me, there are only winners when things go well. But it's fine if 'well' at a given table is a GM that rules over all, whatever works for you is all good.

 

[Charlaquin]

Third - and IME most common - option: the dissenter(s) keep playing in that game and do what they can to get the rule changed again, either back to what it was before or to something else they feel is better than the change that was made.

That’s still scenario 1. If the dissenter(s) are playing the game with the changed rule(s), they have agreed to the changes, albeit reluctantly. They may try to persuade the group to undo the change(s), but… well, the group would have to agree to that. It’s just not possible to change the rules of the game without the consent of the people playing that game.