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

[Mort]

In some cases. In other cases some of us have been doing this long enough we've watched certain things damage or outright ruin what would have been otherwise decent GMs.

Plus these things are quite subjective.

For example, I outright ban PVP pretty much any time I'm running, I've seen it destroy not only campaigns but groups too many times.

Whereas some people (on this board and otherwise) have stories and stories of how much fun PVP has added to their gaming experience.

 

[Oofta]

In some cases. In other cases some of us have been doing this long enough we've watched certain things damage or outright ruin what would have been otherwise decent GMs.

Such as?

 

[Lanefan]

It can be exactly the proper time to express it, when the matter is at hand and not addressing it will potentially change outcomes in a serious way. One should have some sense of how long one wants to express it and how disruptive it is, but frankly, the idea that game flow is so sacred that no interruption to address a problem is acceptable is bafflingly rigid to me.

Agreed. I'd rather hash out whatever it is then and there, get it sorted, set the precedent, lock it in, and move on.

Otherwise you end up having the same discussion (or argument) multiple times: once briefly during the sesison and then once at greater length with each player during the week between sessions...never mind the players might want to discuss-argue the issue with each other as well as with the DM.

 

[Lanefan]

MANY, many years ago in a game I was running, One PC caused the death of another PC. The player of the killed PC then made a character specifically to kill the character that caused his PCs death. When that happened then THAT player did the same thing. Completely derailed the game for everyone else.

As both player and DM I've seen similar cycles play out; but instead of letting it derail the game everyone else either a) just sits back and enjoys the show or b) jumps in, much like a bench-clearing brawl in hockey.

That said, it's easy enough to let those two players continue their feud while the game rolls on for everyone else; if their constantly-being-replaced characters come in at a slightly lower level each time (or, at low level, have to start over from raw 1st) they'll soon fall behind.

 

[pemerton]

So the first and most obvious challenge seems to me to wonder whether play couldn't become more successful in tandem with the DM becoming more skillful?

I take it as obvious that someone can get better at GMing. I know that I have - helped, in part, by reading better accounts of how GMing and RPGing work (thanks, Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, Vincent Baker and Robin Laws); and, in part, by finding better RPGs.

I've spoken to plenty of other RPGers who has also spoken about improving their GMing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Plus these things are quite subjective.

For example, I outright ban PVP pretty much any time I'm running, I've seen it destroy not only campaigns but groups too many times.

Whereas some people (on this board and otherwise) have stories and stories of how much fun PVP has added to their gaming experience.

That's one that very much seems to turn on the people involved in a singularly strong way.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

And if that ruling turns out to be wrong - and I can with trivial ease envision situations* where it would be - now you're hosed, as you're stuck with that ruling for the rest of the campaign.

* - one obvious: the ruling you're making - though correct - is not in the players' favour and 4 out of 5 players would rather it be in their favour because it's their job as players to advocate for just that.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'll agree that a DM who has a clear vision and works to deliver a unique style and tone is (usually) a big plus.

But so are players who advocate for their interests and who express enough interest in the world to want to influence it. Very few DMs have a world that is SO developed that all or even most ground has been covered.

If a player comes to me with a race, if I have an ACTUAL reason to not let them play it - I will say so. But if the reason is, I just hadn't thought about that race? Then more likely that not, we can have a discussion about fitting that race in.

In older Mystara material, before the setting was even known as Mystara, there was a species of cat people called rakasta (very similar to tabaxi) that . . . to me at least . . . only appeared as servants of a family of weird wizards.

Later, as the setting grew, rakasta started showing up everywhere, but always in "remote" places far away from the "Known World" . . . like the distant Savage Coast or even one of Mystara's moons.

It's easy to integrate a new species into just about any campaign, if the player and DM work together, without breaking the campaign. I'm usually the "yes, let's figure it out" kind of DM.

But sometimes, if you are going for a specific tone or feel, adding new options doesn't always work. I'm running a Lord of the Rings 5E campaign right now, and I would have said no to tabaxi, tieflings, dragonborn, etc. I am allowing one player to play an "Istari" using the spellcasting rules from standard 5E, however.

 

[Lanefan]

You keep returning to "having a big argument". The only time that should occur is if the majority of the group disagrees,

IME it only takes one player to create a big argument.

Once in a while I'm that player. Oftentimes it's someone else, and not always the same someone. And the biggest arguments come when it's not just a binary this-or-that decision but one where several options exist and each has at least one ardent supporter.

And yet, in the end it still always comes down to DM decides.

 

[Belen]

And if that ruling turns out to be wrong - and I can with trivial ease envision situations* where it would be - now you're hosed, as you're stuck with that ruling for the rest of the campaign.

* - one obvious: the ruling you're making - though correct - is not in the players' favour and 4 out of 5 players would rather it be in their favour because it's their job as players to advocate for just that.

If I do not feel strongly about it, then I will go with the group.

Now, there have been times when the players research some of the online power builds that many have said are technically correct but I say no because the cheese is strong.