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

[Thomas Shey]

Just for comparison, my Thursday group is planning on discussing our next long-term (year or two) campaign tomorrow. We have 4 DMs that are pitching about a dozen possible options.

While otherwise staying out of the setting-element-control part of this argument, I usually have a handful of potential next-campaign options I present (with usually my first-preferred ones noted) and let them decide what they want to go with. I've got enough games to run and few enough years left to run them in that I can just as easily let my players sort them out as anything, and far easier than finding new players I'd want to GM for.

 

[Oofta]

Agree with above.


I operate in the DM makes an offer of a style of game and players sign up or don't. I realize that is not the way it is for a lot of people. I do believe the setting is absolutely a DM prerogative though. That would include things like races, classes, spells, magic items, etc.. In fact I tell my players that anything they know about magic items and monsters is hearsay at best and not to rely overmuch on it.

I would much rather have a DM who has a clear vision for their world and works hard to deliver a tone and style unique to them than giving everyone a vote. A DM has to be enthusiastic about their game. If I would like to play a dragonborn but can't I can always come up with a dozen different characters that will fit. There is nothing unique about playing a dragonborn that I can't replicate RP wise with another race.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just for comparison, my Thursday group is planning on discussing our next long-term (year or two) campaign tomorrow. We have 4 DMs that are pitching about a dozen possible options.

For the subgroup we've got made up of younger folks not local to the main groups' area, I take regular breaks to give them the opportunity to run something for a month or two before I pick back up. There's usually a week or so of discord discussion while they decide whose idea we're gonna play.

I default to 'whatever' for them when it comes to my input so I'm not influencing their ideas as new DMs. Only time I really objected was when I bowed out of a horror game the others were excited by. I still stuck around not as a player to play support for the DM's very first game, keeping the rulebook open and helping build encounters and such.

 

[Oofta]

The kicker on this is nothing about my suggestion prevents this. After all, the players can just go along with whatever decision the GM has come up with--and probably in many if not most cases will.

What I'm suggesting is that as a group they should have the option not to beyond simply walking away. And the only counters I've seen turn on players as bad actors that yet the GM has not simply elected not to play with nor can otherwise reason with.

There's a big difference between every ruling should be decided by the group if there's ever a disagreement and the DM makes decisions without listening to anyone else. Of course there's options other than walking away. I'll always discuss different opinions on how to rule something (even if it's cut short in the middle of a game so we can discuss later) and do my best to explain my decision as DM. If I have a DM that is making enough decisions that I disagree with (it's happened) that I'm going to walk away then our differences are so vast that voting on decisions won't make a difference. Either I will still be unsatisfied or the DM will feel like they are being forced to run a game they don't want to run. If the DM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would much rather have a DM who has a clear vision for their world and works hard to deliver a tone and style unique to them than giving everyone a vote. A DM has to be enthusiastic about their game.

Yes, this! To me the GM having a curated setting that they have actually thought about and are enthusiastic about is a big selling point.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I've got indecisive people too, but its not hard to go "Do people want to go with this or something else?" People who can't decide that one in five seconds don't care all that much.

I imagine it’s not indecisive people that are the issue, rather having two or more who are all definitely decided on different options.

 

[Emerikol]

Just for comparison, my Thursday group is planning on discussing our next long-term (year or two) campaign tomorrow. We have 4 DMs that are pitching about a dozen possible options.

Then in reality you have 4 DMs who collaborate on one setting. If I did that sort of thing then of course I'd have to collaborate with the other DMs. I wouldn't like that setup though. It seems like a setup driven by the fact no one really loves being the DM so you split duties. Either that or it's a time thing which is common these days too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's a big difference between every ruling should be decided by the group if there's ever a disagreement and the DM makes decisions without listening to anyone else. Of course there's options other than walking away. I'll always discuss different opinions on how to rule something (even if it's cut short in the middle of a game so we can discuss later) and do my best to explain my decision as DM. If I have a DM that is making enough decisions that I disagree with (it's happened) that I'm going to walk away then our differences are so vast that voting on decisions won't make a difference. Either I will still be unsatisfied or the DM will feel like they are being forced to run a game they don't want to run. If the DM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

And none of that requires the DM to have the ultimate right to any decision disagreement, unless you go in assuming that the players are sufficiently dysfunctional for them to have no ability to let things go, to make decisions that are better for the game as a whole, or just to under some circumstances have better judgment than the GM.

But apparently in your eyes that's not possible, so...

 

[Thomas Shey]

I doubt it’s indecisive people that are the issue, rather having two or more who are all definitely decided on different options.

In which case either the majority wins, or the GM tie breaks. Neither of those seems a particular thing to slow things down.

 

[TwoSix]

Then in reality you have 4 DMs who collaborate on one setting. If I did that sort of thing then of course I'd have to collaborate with the other DMs. I wouldn't like that setup though. It seems like a setup driven by the fact no one really loves being the DM so you split duties. Either that or it's a time thing which is common these days too.

To be clear, we have 4 people who are offering to DM, and we're going to pick whose game sounds like the best idea.

I was the last DM, so while I'm throwing some ideas into the pile, I'm not expecting to be the next DM.