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

[Vaalingrade]

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.

At that point we're playing with a whole different definition of 'agree'.

And nonsequitur. Which is at least a new one for Enworld, so respect there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Hmmm. I've occasionally let rules disagreements I had that applied to only a subset of rules that weren't going to have far reaching consequences but mattered a lot to someone else as "a hill I'm not interested in dying on" and let them go. I can see that being viewed as "capitulation".

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I think "agree" is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. I've had rules issues I let go that I didn't really "agree" about so much as deciding the necessary effort required to address the issue wasn't worth it, but I wouldn't describe my response as "agreeing".

 

[Thomas Shey]

The counter-example is the group disbands, or at the least one side or the other that won't agree to compromise leaves.

I suspect they're excluding that with the phrase "viable scenario" in their first sentence given their other posts on this.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I'm not sure where you are getting any of that. To me, Rule 0 is unchanged, but they've re-worded it to remind us to be empathetic and try to look at the situation from the point of view of the others at the table as well as our own. This just seems like good advice...kinda basic. I'm not sure where the pushback is coming from, or the notion that DMs are going to be forced into anything.

I fully concur with the new statement, and nobody forces me into nothin'.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And what of the players in those DM’s games? Were they not free to leave if the DM made a change they didn’t agree to? By making the choice to play in the game with the rules changed, were they not agreeing to play with those changes in place?

I think there's a big excluded middle to at least some extent here; if you have a limited number of gaming options you may decide to continue with rules you actively dislike because you'd rather deal with them than not play at all, but I'm not sure "agree" doesn't have an overly strong sense of commitment to what's going on to describe the situation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Funnily enough, if I say the former, I'm talking about a campaign I'm playing in and if I say the latter, I mean a campaign I'm running as a GM. And without further clarification that's how I would also understand these phrases when other people use them.

Sure, that’s pretty common. My post was about my use as a GM. Even then, I prefer to think of it as “our campaign” because I don’t feel like it’s a solo thing or that I have some kind of ownership over it.

Which kind of jibes with this new take on Rule Zero, and the general trend I’ve noticed over the past several years.

Now, I’d certainly not fault anyone for referring to a campaign that way in a casual way… but the post from @Emerikol to which I was responding was making a pretty clear point that he expects any campaign he runs to be “his” and that anyone who thought otherwise wasn’t a “worthwhile DM”.

So my comment was more about pointing out how archaic, narrow, and, in my opinion, flat out wrong that view is.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, Leomund's Tiny Hut and Rope Trick are two of the first spells banned when I run.

I don't bother banning them (although my house rule is that you can't attack anything outside the hut or rope trick). I just decide what the logical conclusion to them being used is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, that’s pretty common. My post was about my use as a GM. Even then, I prefer to think of it as “our campaign” because I don’t feel like it’s a solo thing or that I have some kind of ownership over it.

Which kind of jibes with this new take on Rule Zero, and the general trend I’ve noticed over the past several years.

Now, I’d certainly not fault anyone for referring to a campaign that way in a casual way… but the post from @Emerikol to which I was responding was making a pretty clear point that he expects any campaign he runs to be “his” and that anyone who thought otherwise wasn’t a “worthwhile DM”.

So my comment was more about pointing out how archaic, narrow, and, in my opinion, flat out wrong that view is.

I may have some limits to how far I'd be interested in letting things change while still running, but I certainly am willing to follow group consensus on most things in a given campaign, so I think I agree with you; that sort of ultra-top-down GMing style was not necessary 40 years ago, and its absolutely not now.

 

[Oofta]

It's the free downloadable module under Educator resources in D&D Beyond.

Ah, I see. I looked under Adventures in Sources. Not even sure how to navigate to Educator resources without the link you provide. In any case, thanks.

EDIT: I can't even access the page if I'm logged into my account. I literally get kicked out of my account if I use the link. Must have something to do with the type of account you have.