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

[Paul Farquhar]

But again, the situation still doesn't require the DM and in fact could be made worse with the DM getting to overrule everyone if they decided to side with the brothel player instead of the group discussing and compromising.

Again, the “fun” rule applies to ALL players, including the DM. The DM may be the offended player.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Again, the “fun” rule applies to ALL players, including the DM. The DM may be the offended player.

That makes it even worse if they're able to just directly veto without any discussion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

All this talk of "power" gives me the impression there is a "versus" viewpoint assumed here.

No, not at all.

What if the GM asks the player who else is in the bar? What if a player says "what if there's a drunken sailor in the bar?" and the GM enthusiastically agrees? What if a player says that and nobody's excited about that, or somebody (anybody at the table) points out that they are not in a port city? What if the GM and players, I dunno, collaborated on bending the world rather than fighting over it?

(I don't need to ask "what if?" about this because I have a GM who regularly does and encourages all that.)

(It's totally fine to play the power dynamic, by the way, but assuming it is correct, or universally desirable for every table, is not cool.)

You can absolutely play this way. And I have. Hell, I have done a lot of GMless freeform RP which by necessity needs to work in roughly similar manner. And it is fine. But I do not prefer it. When I am playing a character, I want to just play that character. I don't want to side GM as well. I love being a GM, and I probably like it more than being player. But I like these things for different reasons. I get to do enough GMing when I'm the actual GM, when I play a character, I want to do something different.

 

[Oofta]

Again, the “fun” rule applies to ALL players, including the DM. The DM may be the offended player.

I will never understand why what the DM wants out of the game needs to take a back seat to what the players want. In my game everyone, DM included, has veto power over plans.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That makes it even worse if they're able to just directly veto without any discussion.

Every player has a veto. That’s what rule zero means.

 

[Clint_L]

D&D is designed to put most of the narrative power in the DM's hands. The obvious comparison is to a PbtA game, which has rules designed to empower the players almost as much as the DM (the DM still controls much of the underlying setting, but the narrative beats of the story are by design significantly in players' hands). As a result, although a D&D game can be more or less inclusive of player contributions to the story beyond the narrow path laid out in the rules, this depends on the DM choosing how much power they want to share. 4e a little bit excepted; it goes slightly further in expanding narrative agency to players.

There are pros and cons to this design; I think the con is basically that a DM could enforce a "my way or the highway" dynamic that is problematic. So the new formulation of Rule 0 emphasizes consensus and empathy. It's basically saying to new DMs, "hey, in D&D this DM role gives you a lot of power; be mindful of everyone." It's the same message we give students all the time: think of others, not just yourself.

 

[Oofta]

D&D is designed to put most of the power in the DM's hands. The obvious comparison is to a PbtA game, which has rules designed to empower the players almost as much as the DM (the DM still controls much of the underlying setting, but the narrative beats of the story are by design significantly in players' hands). As a result, although a D&D game can be more or less inclusive of player contributions to the story beyond the narrow path laid out in the rules, this depends on the DM choosing how much power they want to share. 4e a little bit excepted; it goes slightly further in expanding narrative agency to players.

There are pros and cons to this design; I think the con is basically that a DM could enforce a "my way or the highway" dynamic that is problematic. So the new formulation of Rule 0 emphasizes consensus and empathy. It's basically saying to new DMs, "hey, in D&D this role gives you a lot of power; be mindful of everyone." It's the same message we give students all the time: think of others, not just yourself.

Very few people will ever read the text pointed out by the OP since it's in an intro mod with simplified rules. However there are plenty of reminders in the books that it's a group activity and you should think of the other players at the table. The new DMG has an entire section on "Ensuring fun for all". On the player side there's things like "avoid character choices that ruin the fun of other players and the DM."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Every player has a veto. That’s what rule zero means.

If it's every player, then I'm cool with it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

132 pages of some people saying "different things are possible" and others saying "nu uh". Truly impressive... This thread has drifted to like 6 different topics at this point.

Welcome to EnWorld, new guy , this thread could have been laid down back in '09, nobody said 'nothin since then, lol.

 

[TwoSix]

Welcome to EnWorld, new guy , this thread could have been laid down back in '09, nobody said 'nothin since then, lol.

It’s often some new people, at least.

I mean, not us, but some people.