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

[Velderan]

So are you saying that a DM should not build a campaign setting that limits or omits certain species, monsters, classes, or spells?

They probably shouldn't if they know the players that will be playing in that campaign are going to strongly want to play something they don't want in the campaign for whatever reason. That's where the both sides need to agree thing comes into play.

 

[Belen]

I think it can be broken down starkly.

You have a rules question come up in a group consisting of five players and a GM. The GM thinks it should be done one way; four of the five players think it should be done a different way.

Which way is the group expected to go with? I see no general reason in that situation it should be the GM (I'm not even sure it should if two of them have a different one, if none of the other three have an opinion one way or another). Yes, there can be social complications that apply, but that doesn't change the basic principal.

Generally, as a DM, I would rule in favor of the 4 of 5 players. It is not complicated. It is a quick ruling, you move on, and then discuss later to see if there is final consensus.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No one should ever seek to control other people, but the role of DM serves as arbiter, pace setter, and story/adventurer facilitator

And none of those are implied by 'master'.

Again, I know what that's supposed to mean, but in this very thread, I constantly see examples of people who are absolutely using it to imply supreme authority.

 

[Mort]

Gygax would have disagreed,

I'm sure. I disagreed with that approach when I started playing in the 80s and I disagree with it even more now.

but I haven't seen anyone espouse that opinion nor have I seen it in a book for a long time.

There are people on this board with very much that viewpoint (though I'm still not convinced the main one is not an elaborate troll).

 

[Belen]

They probably shouldn't if they know the players that will be playing in that campaign are going to strongly want to play something they don't want in the campaign for whatever reason. That's where the both sides need to agree thing comes into play.

My general style is to be upfront about it and people are free to choose to play or not. I cannot run a game if I am not invested and motivated. I will send people a 1 page document that details any default assumptions, the style of the game, and the starting area. It is player choice.

 

[Velderan]

What specific behaviors? Because if you're saying that we should always strive to get agreement? Yep, absolutely. I'm just saying that sometimes it doesn't really impact outcomes that much so I'd rather just have the DM make a decision and move on no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on. If you're saying the DM should never make a final call, even if some people disagree? I disagree.

Way back in the day, the DMG had truly terrible advice. Along the lines of "If your players are being overly cautious, punish their characters until they play the way you want them to." But those days are long ago and, thankfully, largely forgotten.

And now you make me wonder how the 2e DMG handled that sort of advice, because I really don't remember it being as heavy handed as you're saying but I also haven't read it in at least 25 years.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They probably shouldn't if they know the players that will be playing in that campaign are going to strongly want to play something they don't want in the campaign for whatever reason. That's where the both sides need to agree thing comes into play.

Yeah, I've seen spite worlds multiple times.

"Bob plays X all the time, I don't like X, so in this world, I'm banning X so I don't have to see X. I do not care about Bob's preferences except where they mildly annoy me'.

Then when called on it, this suddenly becomes some kind of artistic vision.

And yet, for all my hate of gnomes and what D&D has done to those wonderful friendly earth spirits and through them the concept of magical technology, I never banned them from any but my first, error-riddled game.

 

[Cadence]

I've not talked about 100% agreement. That's not what consensus means, after all.

Is there consensus on what on whether it means unanimous or not?

<-OED definition 1a

 

[Oofta]

I've not talked about 100% agreement. That's not what consensus means, after all. But there's a big difference between that and "what the GM says, goes."

On rare occasions I've made decisions that a couple of people disagreed with and the rest of the group were silent. As a specific example from years ago I nerfed heat metal a little bit; the target of heat metal gets a con saving throw every round if the target is their armor*. Why? Because I felt like I could never have a BBEG in armor because every single time they had disadvantage for the rest of the combat after the bard went. I could have retaliated and started having NPCs using it against the PCs but that is simply not my style.

Sometimes I make decisions because it's the best way I know to make the game fun for everyone at the table. If the paladin or fighter in the group had been target of heat metal on a regular basis, it wouldn't have been fun for them. Because I felt like I could never depict some of the enemies how I wanted to the game was not as enjoyable for me and placed unnecessary limitations on worldbuilding.

If you can't accept decisions like that from your DM then I'm not the DM for you.

*According to the spell if you cast heat metal on armor the target is at disadvantage on just about everything. It takes minutes to take off armor so that was never going to happen. Meanwhile the bard could just hide in the back.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Generally, as a DM, I would rule in favor of the 4 of 5 players. It is not complicated. It is a quick ruling, you move on, and then discuss later to see if there is final consensus.

But that everyone who GMs would have the same attitude (and of course the "two player opinion/one GM opinion" question doesn't entirely go away).

Basically, barring special cases, I don't see a GM's opinion being vastly more important here than a player's. I'm willing to give them (from lack of a better term) a 1.5 vote for practical reasons (if nothing else to be a tie breaker) but see no intrinsic reasons they should have an overwhelming more weight on rules decisions than the players do (note I'm keeping this focused on that because I have no interest in getting dragged into the campaign-decisions part at this time as I consider that a more complex and not really entirely related question).