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

[Emerikol]

The first was a neurodivergent kid who came to D&D camp with his fully loaded Darth Vader mask and I was more than happy to do whatever it took to engage him. The second is an ELL student who just wants to make friends and doesn't have great English. Now he has friends to sit with at lunch.

I have bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether the D&D campaign matches my preconceived notions, especially with beginners. I just want them to engage, start learning, have fun, put their phones down, and hopefully make some buddies.

To me, this is not something I would do for fun. If I ran a game in this instance it would be me just running a game to help them. It would be very similar to me running a game for a bunch of twelve year olds. I'd have to have some motivation besides "having fun" to do it.

In general, I used to come into campaigns with a story I wanted to tell. Now I try to come in with the attitude that I get to facilitate a story we will generate together. If I put aside my own expectations of what the story should be, I can't be disappointed and will likely be entertained.

I think there is setting and plot. I don't bring a plot. I bring a setting with interesting denizens. The players make their story in that setting.

Here's an example that @Lanefan will recognize: I was hosting a game of Dread that included him and some members of his VERY long running D&D group. The premise of the game was college rafting trip gone wrong - kind of a Deliverance meets Danger at Dunwater scenario. Anyhow, I asked players to prep a character, and one designed a character who was secretly a vampire.

My first (private) reaction was "well, no, that's not what I had in mind for this story." But then I thought about it...and so what? Just because it wasn't my idea and could take the story in a radically different direction didn't mean it wasn't an awesome idea that could be a ton of fun. The only real issue, aside from my ego, was that a fully powered vampire could obviate a lot of the scenario (super strength, being able to turn into mist, and all that), so I told the player sure, but did she mind finding de-powering her vampire for those reasons, and she was more than happy to oblige.

The game was super fun, the vampire angle added a whole new element to it and a surprise ending that I could never have predicted, and made the game better for everyone. And all I had to do was let someone else be creative.

I firmly believe that everyone should go with what works for them and their group. If you prefer tight narrative control, then bless. I'm not advising anyone to do anything, but I can report back that the more I let go of my own preconceptions about how the story should be, the more fun I've had helping to create it.

I prefer it both ways. I likely would have been disappointed in that game. I can barely find a DM that can create a great setting. If the entire group jumps into setting design then what results will almost assuredly be the sort of thing I wouldn't like.

I think there are different aspects of gaming that people like. You probably have a set of things you like that affords some of these things better than I do.

For me...
1. I have to believe in the setting. That means I have to at least contemplate that somewhere out there this world could theoretically exist. So any form of joke game I'm generally against.
2. I want to explore and I want lots of things to explore. I want to interact with the setting which includes the NPCs. I want to have in game connections with more than just the PCs.
3. I like some gamism. I want skill to matter. Strategy and tactics, preparation and planning.
4. I want to act as my character. I don't want to make decisions for events inside the game that my character could not have made. We throw around the terms actor, pawn, and author. I'm firmly in the actor camp.
5. I like for the rules to make some sense in the world. A form of mild simulationism. I don't want the rules to be PC exceptions.

That is the kind of games I want to play in as a player and run as a DM.

 

[Mort]

What are these issues in your mind? What qualifies?

Because man, I'm here running a game kicking in doors, killing monsters, spending the loot, and moving on. "Earning trust" is a whole lot more adulting that I really couldnt be bothered with.

Earning Trust means they players are willing to go with the DM even when things get wonky. This isn't a problem for established groups, but for new groups or convention ones, short term ones etc, the DM needs to establish some trust before doing certain scenarios.

Here's a post I posted in a prior thread, which seems to apply:

Agreed, but it often has to be established. You don't necessarily know if you trust the DM until the trust is tested - so the DM should, hopefully, establish some trust before testing it.

Example:

I have a friend who likes ambitious campaigns.

He starts a new robotech-rifts crossover campaign. 4 new players (they knew him and had gamed with him, but he had never DM'd for them) and me (who had seen him DM many times over the years).

Very first scene - he describes us waking up at our base and a stranger is approaching. Everyone meets the stranger who starts giving all these ominous portents about bad things about to happen, we need to be ready etc. etc. He has this whole monologue which is suddenly interrupted by a horde of rats over-running the base. One of the players is a pugnacious sort and starts trash talking the stranger (stranger is full of it, why should we listen etc.). The rats converge on the trash talking PC and swarm him (there have been no rolls of any kind as of this point). DM hands the trash talker an envelope and tells him to read it in the next room.

But the player (of the trash talker) is red faced and furious. He tears up the envelope, calls the entire scenario BS and storms out.

The DM, backpedaling and a bit startled, explains that the envelope just had a note that explained the Player's PC woke up (it had all been a communal dream sequence - meant to be a warning of things to come).

Unfortunately, the other players were pretty put off. The DM had forgotten to establish trust with the table (other than me) and the ambitious attempt went poorly. The whole attempt at a campaign fell apart right there.

In the context of this thread, the players were willing to go with the DM to a point, but not farther.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Someone reported that this thread is getting a bit snippy. Coming in and reading, I have to agree.

At 70+ pages, most discussions have really already run thorugh people's current thoughts, and further discussion tends to retread the same ground, but folks start to show their frustration at continued resistance. People get annoyed, start making accusations, or phrase their positions in snarky ways.

None of that helps the discussion continue to be constructive.

If being constructive is no longer your goal, maybe it is time to take a break, and find something a bit more fresh. Don't make yourself the target for the next red text that appears in here.

 

[Dire Bare]

So now a DM that wants consistency and a world that makes sense to them so they limit species allowed is "Overly restrictive and controlling"? Really? I'm just doing the best I can to run a game that I and my players enjoy. You may not like some of my decisions but that's a pretty condescending way of phrasing it.

It wasn't a personal attack.

Consistency? Controlling? Restrictive? Vague points on a continuum.

Are you an overly controlling and restrictive DM? I don't know. From your posts in this thread, you are more prescriptive than I care for, but . . . so? If it works for you and your gaming group, carry on.

Edited after mod post.

 

[Thomas Shey]

D&D very much has an implied setting. Which includes dragonborn, tieflings, and goliath.

That's the assumption some people would make. I don't think its the one I would (unlike the case with PF2e which is very much wrapped up with Golarion) and I don't think its one you can expect everyone to make, including all GMs.

Now, the core books are pretty clear groups can play around with those implied assumptions when worldbuilding, but they are there as a baseline.

If I was invited to play with a new D&D group, and was not given a "house rules" or "campaign rules" document (or talk) at or before Session Zero . . . I would assume I could play a dragonborn or tiefling and would be irritated if I was later told, "Oh, no, dragonborn don't exist in my setting because reasons". And this sort of thing has happened to me multiple times over the years. I just walk from DMs like that. Not because I need to play a dragonborn, but I don't have a lot of patience for poor communicators or overly restrictive DMs.

I understand the irritation, but this is one of those cases where I don't think there's misbehavior on anyone's part, just a discrepancy in expectations with accompanying communication failure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the context of absolute authority, yes.

I dislike anything involving absolute authority other than the one divine authority I recognize. Regular old human beings cannot be trusted with absolute authority--ever. Oversight, accountability, and checks and balances. That's the one and only way to produce a power structure run by humans that won't fall into serious, serious problems.

Mate. It is a game with friends who I want to have good time. I won't go mad with power because I get to have the final say about what goes in the setting or how the rules work.

It's fine to make curated settings...

IF AND ONLY IF YOU EARN YOUR PLAYERS' TRUST AND ENTHUSIASM FIRST.

Something I have, in fact, said repeatedly in this thread. Something I have been repeatedly mocked, derided, or dismissed for saying, thread after thread after thread. Despite it being what seems, to me, an incredibly mild but incredibly important statement.

What it takes to earn one's trust is for each individual to decide. You seem to be very mistrustful and suspicious towards GMs, perhaps due some bad past experiences. I tend to give everyone a benefit of doubt, though granted, I usually do not play with total strangers, they're friends or at least acquaintances, so the trust is probably easier to establish.

 

[Oofta]

Like I said, y'all need to relax and stop taking things personally.

Are you are overly controlling and restrictive DM? I don't know. From your posts in this thread, you are more prescriptive than I care for, but . . . so? If it works for you and your gaming group, carry on.

All I ask is that you be a bit more careful in how you say things. Is there any reason to use the phrase "Overly restrictive and controlling"? Because it's condescending even if you then say what amounts to "It's okay if you're a control freak...". I'm not offended, just offering feedback.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the intent of the Rule Zero from the OP is much in the line of "Oh, I'm not a fan of how dual-wielding works, let's make this adjustment" or "I think Leomund's Tiny Hut should only last an hour, what do you guys think?"; it's definitely not trying to make any assertion as to who has authority over setting.

If its just an assertation "People can change things" that fine, but also pretty far from how Rule 0 has traditionally been presented.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I tried the former. The latter was still very very new at the time, so I wanted to give it some time for folks to figure it out first.

Probably just as well since it had its own sort of 2.25 thing after the WOTC fiasco.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The red flag for me is if they do not communicate ahead of time. I do not care about restrictions but I do want to get the information from the DM to plan correctly or, I will just ask if they do not provide anything to find it.

Dragonborn, tieflings, goliaths, etc are newer to D&D so I would not make the assumption that they are available.

I think, however, you're making a distinction between races a random new D&D player in a campaign would not make, one way or the other.