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

[Charlaquin]

Not trying to split hairs, but it actually sounds like they continued playing in spite of the made changes not because of agreement with them.

There could be all sorts of reasons - They like the game on balance. They can't find an alternative. etc.

But, I don't think continuing to play means they accept any particular change.

Fair enough, I guess. I think I’ve made my case as best I can; if you didn’t find it persuasive, then we can agree to disagree.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you are going for "technically true" but not what most of us would consider behaviour that is really concerned with coming to consensual agreement.

Yeah, I’m making the case that, for those who don’t like this framing of rule zero because it insists on seeking agreement, the practical reality of its implementation is probably less different than they’re thinking. A DM who just changes rules unilaterally is either going to have players agree (potentially reluctantly) to play by those rules, or players will leave their game because they don’t agree.

Edit: like, I know that this is getting into fraught territory, but at school we teach students about consent, and a lot of what you are describing as consent is not what we are telling them.

You’re absolutely correct about that, and I concede that consent was not the appropriate term to use to try to make my case. What I’m describing as agreement is definitely not the same thing as consent, and that’s a very important distinction for people to understand.

 

[Oofta]

I guess I just don't see any sudden shift in the advice given in the books. Yes, we now have numbers stated for success of checks because it's simpler. But the DM still makes the final call on target numbers based on situational modifiers. We are told repeatedly that the players contribute to the direction of the game through the words and deeds of their characters. D&D has not suddenly changed the fundamental nature of play.

It may be framed differently but it's been decades since there was this sense of DM vs players that Gygax seemed to promote at times. While they emphasize that the goal is for everyone to have fun (perhaps even repeating it a bit too often at times) and we can quibble about what "fun" means, the DM is still the referee making the call on rules and the one that decides on when to introduce house rules. It's also very clear that when it comes to disruptive players that sometimes you just have to make clear ultimatums on what kind of game is being played and that sometimes you may have to ask a player to leave the game. Again, this is nothing new.

D&D has always been a cooperative game. There's some decent advice in the new books on mutual respect and resolving differences by talking about issues. Meanwhile if the DM pushes choices I don't care for, at some point I decide whether it's worth playing. If, as a DM, I have a player who is disruptive I always have the option of disinviting them.

 

[clearstream]

the DM is still the referee making the call on rules and the one that decides on when to introduce house rules.

Doesn't the wording imply that anyone can introduce a house rule

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.​

​

That stops short of saying who proposes the change... seeming to leave it open to anyone. (Caveated that I haven't read the text this is quoted from. So @Mort may be able to find contextualising text that ties it back to DM.)

 

[clearstream]

Doesn't the wording imply that anyone can introduce a house rule

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.​

​

That stops short of saying who proposes the change... seeming to leave it open to anyone. (Caveated that I haven't read the text this is quoted from. So @Mort may be able to find contextualising text that ties it back to DM.)

Found more text

Tips for Dungeon Masters​

​

Here are some tips for DMs that can help them run great games:​

​

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 someans the game is more fun for everyone.​

​

Be Supportive. The players and the DM are all on the same team. DMs aren’t playing against the characters. The DM wins when the players have fun and the story is exciting and memorable.​

​

Use “Yes, and …” or “No, but …” Allow the players to succeed as much as possible, and let them participate in the telling ofthe story. If they want to try something unexpected, try to say“yes” and then work their ideas into the story. If you have to say “no” to a player’s idea, suggest options that let them do something similar​

​

I'm undecided at this point whether the title ought to imply that only DM can access the option presented. FTM are "tips" the same as rules?

 

[Oofta]

Doesn't the wording imply that anyone can introduce a house rule

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.​

​

That stops short of saying who proposes the change... seeming to leave it open to anyone. (Caveated that I haven't read the text this is quoted from. So @Mort may be able to find contextualising text that ties it back to DM.)

I'm just going by what the DMG says. As far as who brings up the idea? Why would I as a DM care? If we like the house rule we'll adopt it.

Also we need to remember that the advice this thread seems to be based on is for absolute beginners. As far as the actual mod, I can't find it on DDB. Maybe @Mort could clarify, or is this only for educators?

 

[abirdcall]

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).

A more charitable interpretation is that it is meant to reduce the cognitive load of new players, esp. new DMs.

All these things are still possible to tinker with, it's just not expected that a new DM learn how to tinker with them to just get the first game going.

In the end I think the approach is a bit hit and miss, but then I'm not a brand new player so I don't actually have the viewpoint to accurately assess that.

 

[Emerikol]

Found more text

Tips for Dungeon Masters​

​

Here are some tips for DMs that can help them run great games:​

​

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 someans the game is more fun for everyone.​

​

Be Supportive. The players and the DM are all on the same team. DMs aren’t playing against the characters. The DM wins when the players have fun and the story is exciting and memorable.​

​

Use “Yes, and …” or “No, but …” Allow the players to succeed as much as possible, and let them participate in the telling ofthe story. If they want to try something unexpected, try to say“yes” and then work their ideas into the story. If you have to say “no” to a player’s idea, suggest options that let them do something similar​

​

I'm undecided at this point whether the title ought to imply that only DM can access the option presented. FTM are "tips" the same as rules?

The problem is that they've redefined rule 0. That isn't the rule 0 we've had for literally decades.

We already have a shortage of DMs. You will never override and force a DM to play your campaign instead of his campaign or if you do that DM isn't worth having.

What we should be doing is treating DMs and players like a dating game. Don't try to change people. Just go with the one that fits you.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What we should be doing is treating DMs and players like a dating game. Don't try to change people. Just go with the one that fits you.

And hope that the DM isn't a serial killer using the game to meet victims.

 

[Emerikol]

And hope that the DM isn't a serial killer using the game to meet victims.

Good point. Crazy evil DMs though are not that hard to spot.