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

[KYRON45]

Yes you can. If the DM is the one with final say established in Rule 0. Because the DM can rule against the bad player to keep them in line, but players can't rule against a bad DM.

They can choose to not show up to the next game though.

 

[CreamCloud0]

For me, it's also because I have a persistent game world that I've always used. So if a tabaxi shows up in a game then they have always existed and will continue to exist. But as the saying goes, once a camel gets his nose under a tent flap the rest of the camel is soon to follow. Allow a tabaxi? Then you have to allow a dragonborn, tieflings, aarakocra, firbolgs, harengons, whatever other species someone wants to play. Fine if it's what you want, I don't. That, and every species will ultimately just be represented as having some aspect of humanity that any human can also focus on. Species seems to fade into the background of pretty much every PC, including my own, after a little bit.

I allow exceptions now and then but it has to make sense and there has to be justification for the addition. I can also imagine a campaign world where Mos Eisley's Cantina wouldn't be out of place. It's just no my campaign world.

also, once you allow the first tabaxi from 'a place far away' it becomes that much harder to deny the second, and the third, eventually enough someone is going to ask about or want to go back to that nebulous 'faraway place' and thus 'the tabaxi continent' solidifies into existence and has found it's way into the setting.

 

[GMMichael]

In one case the player wanted to "just go to a bar and stuff happens" which ... I'm still not sure what they wanted. Maybe simple dungeon crawls?

That might have been a reference to the real world phenomenon of bars getting more interesting after each beer.

Another wanted to play an evil PC, something I don't allow.

Aw! You don't allow PCs that use magic, hoard gold, and kill on the daily?

There is no one true way.

The OP observation on rule zero points to WotC suggesting there is one true way: the rule book's way. Can you "change the rules?" Totally. Can you get "everyone" to agree that your change would be more fun? I doubt it.

It's good that that rule abomination is tucked off in the adventure-for-kids. But that doesn't mean that it's not between the lines of the PHB and DMG.

 

[TiQuinn]

We did. There were. Remember Thaco the clown?

lol, I still can’t believe there were people who got bent outta shape over that.

 

[Oofta]

also, once you allow the first tabaxi from 'a place far away' it becomes that much harder to deny the second, and the third, eventually enough someone is going to ask about or want to go back to that nebulous 'faraway place' and thus 'the tabaxi continent' solidifies into existence and has found it's way into the setting.

Yep. I can imagine a crossroads world. One that for some reason has species from hundreds if not thousands of different worlds like Star Wars. It might even be fun. It's just not my world.

I played a tabaxi in an FR campaign, I don't have an issue with them. But FR makes no sense to me if approached from a world building perspective instead of as a D&D showcase of anything and everything perspective.

 

[Mort]

Yes you can. If the DM is the one with final say established in Rule 0. Because the DM can rule against the bad player to keep them in line, but players can't rule against a bad DM.

What does rule against the "bad" player mean?


Does it mean the player's character is overpowered but legal per the chosen game and rules set? Can the DM overrule that? Should they? Rather than just having an honest conversation?

Does it mean the player is caught cheating? If so, that's not a rule against situation, that's a let's have an above game conversation.

Does it mean the player has his character do something the DM doesn't want? If so, many people here hold that inviolate and would actually say the DM can't overrule that - the player controls the character.

But more importantly, what does a "bad" player mean exactly? And rather than "keeping them in line..." Via the game/mechanics wouldn't it be better to have a conversation re: whatever the problem is?

 

[Mort]

also, once you allow the first tabaxi from 'a place far away' it becomes that much harder to deny the second, and the third, eventually enough someone is going to ask about or want to go back to that nebulous 'faraway place' and thus 'the tabaxi continent' solidifies into existence and has found it's way into the setting.

That actually sounds like a pretty good development/ opportunity for a fun campaign!

Really gives an opportunity for a "things are different here..." situation.

 

[CreamCloud0]

That actually sounds like a pretty good development/ opportunity for a fun campaign!

Really gives an opportunity for a "things are different here..." situation.

not if you never wanted tabaxi in your campaign world...

 

[TwoSix]

lol, I still can’t believe there were people who got bent outta shape over that.

I mean, is it that hard to subtract Thaco the Clown?

 

[Micah Sweet]

That might have been a reference to the real world phenomenon of bars getting more interesting after each beer.


Aw! You don't allow PCs that use magic, hoard gold, and kill on the daily?


The OP observation on rule zero points to WotC suggesting there is one true way: the rule book's way. Can you "change the rules?" Totally. Can you get "everyone" to agree that your change would be more fun? I doubt it.

It's good that that rule abomination is tucked off in the adventure-for-kids. But that doesn't mean that it's not between the lines of the PHB and DMG.

Interestingly, it doesn't say the group should look at the rules they present in the book to see if everyone is having fun with them as they stand. I guess it's assumed they are.